Quashing of Criminal Petitions Allows Fresh Action against Partnership Firm

The Criminal Original Petitions were allowed, resulting in the quashing of proceedings in E.O.C.C.Nos.102, 99, 98, 100, 101 of 2009. The respondent was granted liberty to commence fresh action against the partnership firm alongside the partners, provided it complies with legal provisions. The court emphasized the necessity of impleading the partnership firm in prosecutions, citing relevant statutory provisions, and rejected the argument that the petitioner could not benefit from a subsequent Supreme Court ruling.

---

---

Issues:
Seeking to quash proceedings in E.O.C.C.Nos.102, 99, 98, 100, 101 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Economic Offences (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed petitions to quash the complaint pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, citing non-compliance with the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The petitioner argued that the order of the Commissioner was set aside by the CESTAT in Appeal Nos. E/337 & E/338. Referring to the judgment in Anil Gupta v. Star India Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner contended that prosecution without impleading the partnership firm is not maintainable. The petitioner, being only a partner, asserted that the partnership firm, M/s. Urbane Industries, should have been included as an accused.

The Special Public Prosecutor acknowledged the relevance of the Supreme Court judgment regarding the necessity of impleading the partnership firm. However, he argued that since the prosecution was initiated in 2009 and the judgment was delivered in 2014, the petitioner cannot benefit from the later ruling. He suggested granting liberty to initiate proceedings against the partnership firm along with the petitioner.

The court rejected the Special Public Prosecutor's contention, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's decision did not specify prospective application. Citing Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, akin to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court held that prosecution without impleading the partnership firm is not sustainable. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, quashing the proceedings and granting liberty to the respondent to take further action against the partnership firm if legally permissible.

In conclusion, the Criminal Original Petitions were allowed, leading to the quashing of proceedings in E.O.C.C.Nos.102, 99, 98, 100, 101 of 2009. The respondent was given liberty to initiate fresh action against the partnership firm alongside the partners, subject to legal provisions.

---