Monetary threshold for prosecution under Central Excise law did not justify quashing at the writ stage.

Criminal prosecution under Central Excise law was challenged on the basis that, after rectification, the duty liability fell below the monetary threshold for launching prosecution. The petitioners invoked the monetary-limit circular to argue that continuation of the complaint would be futile, but the court noted that the respondent relied on an earlier circular said to clarify the effect of such reduction. Because that earlier circular was not placed on record or properly addressed, the court declined to quash the proceedings in inherent jurisdiction at that stage. The complaint was allowed to proceed, leaving the petitioners to raise their objections before the trial court at charge stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings arising from the complaint under the Central Excise law should be quashed on the ground that the duty, after rectification, fell below the monetary limit prescribed for launching prosecution.

Analysis: The petitioners relied on the monetary-limit circular and the subsequent reduction of duty to contend that continuation of the complaint would be futile. The Court accepted that the reduced duty appeared to bring the matter below the prescribed threshold, but noted that the respondent had referred to an earlier circular said to clarify the effect of such reduction. As that earlier circular was neither placed on record nor meaningfully addressed in argument, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at that stage.

Conclusion: The complaint proceedings were not quashed, and the petitioners were left to raise their objections before the trial court at the stage of charge.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the continuance of prosecution was not accepted at the writ stage, and the criminal complaint was allowed to proceed before the trial court.

---