TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court partially quashes case against officers in petition but allows proceedings against company.</h1> The court partially allowed the petition, quashing the process against the Administrative Officer and Works Manager (petitioners Nos. 3 and 4) due to the ... Criminal proceedings - Offences and penalties - Removal of goods without payment of duty Issues Involved:1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings2. Issuance of Summons3. Liability of Company Officials4. Application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code5. Interpretation of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 218 of 1980 and to set aside the order of issuing summonses against them. The primary contention was that the facts alleged in the complaint did not make out any offence against the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in *Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi* and *Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi* to outline the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed.2. Issuance of Summons:The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan issued process to the petitioners and Respondent No. 2 for offences under Section 9(b), (bb), (bbb), and (c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners argued that the complaint did not disclose any acts of commission or omission on their part that would constitute an offence. The court examined whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to disclose the alleged offence against the petitioners, emphasizing that the process can be quashed if the complaint does not make out a case against the accused.3. Liability of Company Officials:The court analyzed the liability of the petitioners in their respective roles within the company. It was noted that the accused No. 2 was the Managing Director and in overall charge of the company, while the accused Nos. 3 and 4 were the Administrative Officer and Works Manager, respectively. The court found that the Managing Director (petitioner No. 2) was liable for the payment of excise duty and the removal of excisable goods, as he was in overall charge of the company. However, there were no specific allegations against the Administrative Officer and Works Manager (petitioners Nos. 3 and 4) that would make them liable for the offences.4. Application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code:The court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was emphasized that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only when no other remedy is available to the litigant. The court found that the allegations in the complaint against the Managing Director were sufficient to disclose an offence, thereby justifying the issuance of process against him. However, the same was not true for the Administrative Officer and Works Manager.5. Interpretation of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:The court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the rules framed thereunder. It was noted that the company had taken credit in the Personal Ledger Account without making a corresponding deposit, and the Managing Director was responsible for the overall conduct of the company's business. The court distinguished the present case from the Calcutta High Court's decision in *Kedar Nath Goenka v. Superintendent of Central Excise*, where the directors were not found liable due to the lack of specific allegations.Conclusion:The petition was partially allowed. The process issued against the Administrative Officer and Works Manager (petitioners Nos. 3 and 4) was quashed due to the absence of specific allegations against them. However, the petition failed concerning the Managing Director (petitioner No. 2) and the company (petitioner No. 1), as the complaint disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against them. The court also rejected the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and granted a stay of proceedings in the trial court for one month.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
