Court dismisses petition challenging late criminal proceedings under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, due to statutory amendment.

The court dismissed the petition to quash criminal proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, due to a delay in filing the complaint. The court determined that the amendment to Section 40(2) of the Act removed the limitation of six months for prosecution, allowing actions beyond that timeframe. As a result, the complaint filed after the statutory period was deemed valid, and the petitioners' request for the return of attached goods was withdrawn. The court concluded that the prosecution was not barred by the amendment, and the criminal application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Petition to quash criminal proceedings due to delay in filing complaint under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a textile manufacturing company and its directors, sought to quash criminal proceedings for not holding a Central Excise license. The Excise Department alleged duty evasion and initiated a complaint beyond the statutory period. The key contention was whether the complaint filed after the expiration of six months was valid under Section 40(2) of the Act.

The court examined the pre and post-amendment provisions of Section 40(2) of the Act. The amendment expanded the scope to include actions against State Government and officers. Citing a Supreme Court case, the court clarified that the amended provision did not provide any benefit or limitation for launching a prosecution. The petitioners argued that the old provision should apply, rendering the complaint invalid due to the elapsed six-month period.

Referring to a Supreme Court case regarding Income-Tax Act amendments, the court rejected the argument that a vested right accrued due to the limitation period. It emphasized that the amendment removed the bar of six months, allowing prosecution beyond that timeframe. The court noted that the petitioners had no immunity from prosecution post-amendment, as the right was in the process of accruing and not yet vested.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition as the prosecution was not barred by the amendment. The petitioners' plea for return of attached goods was withdrawn, leaving the matter to be addressed before the Magistrate. The court held that no other issues were raised, and the criminal application was dismissed, with no orders passed on the attached goods application.

---