Prima facie offence in complaint sustains process only where specific allegations link each accused to the contravention.

In quashing proceedings, process may be sustained only if the complaint, read as a whole and taken at face value, discloses the essential ingredients of the offence against the particular accused. Allegations showing that the managing director was in overall charge, had responded to the show-cause notice, and was linked to excise duty payment and removal of goods were sufficient to sustain process against him. By contrast, no specific averments connected the administrative officer or works manager with the duty default or removal of goods, and their designations alone were insufficient; process against them was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and accompanying materials disclosed a prima facie offence against the managing director so as to justify issuance of process. (ii) Whether the complaint disclosed any offence against the administrative officer and works manager so as to justify issuance of process.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint and accompanying materials disclosed a prima facie offence against the managing director so as to justify issuance of process.

Analysis: The allegations showed that the managing director was in overall charge of the company, had responded to the show-cause notice in that capacity, and was connected with the payment of excise duty and removal of goods. The complaint alleged that the goods were removed without payment of duty and that the relevant entries and challan were manipulated. Applying the settled test that process may be quashed only where the complaint, taken at face value, discloses no offence, the material was sufficient to show his nexus with the alleged contravention.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and process against the managing director was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed any offence against the administrative officer and works manager so as to justify issuance of process.

Analysis: The complaint contained no specific averments showing how the administrative officer or the works manager was concerned with payment of excise duty or with removal of the goods. Their designations, without more, were insufficient to attribute the essential acts of commission or omission required by the offence provisions. On the face of the complaint, no substantive case was made out against them.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and the process against the administrative officer and works manager was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was sustained against the company and the managing director, but quashed against the administrative officer and the works manager, leaving the petition successful only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: In quashing proceedings, process can be sustained only where the complaint, read as a whole and taken at face value, discloses the essential ingredients of the offence against the particular accused; mere holding of office is insufficient without allegations showing the accused's specific nexus with the contravention.

---