Limitation and premature excise prosecution bar criminal complaint before departmental adjudication determines the shortage.

A prosecution for alleged evasion of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held time-barred because it was instituted beyond the six-month limitation period in section 40(2), counted from when the shortage was noticed and the officer had knowledge of the alleged irregularity. The criminal complaint was also premature because the departmental adjudication under Rule 223(A) had not yet determined whether the shortage resulted from clandestine removal or from permissible wastage or other non-culpable causes. The complaint was therefore not maintainable, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint for alleged evasion of excise duty was barred by limitation and could be maintained before completion of the departmental adjudication under Rule 223(A).

Analysis: The complaint was filed after the expiry of six months from the date when the shortage was noticed and when the officer had knowledge of the alleged irregularity. Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was applied as a general limitation provision governing prosecutions for acts done under the Act. The pending adjudication under Rule 223(A) also meant that the liability of the warehouse keeper had not yet been conclusively determined, so the criminal court could not safely proceed on the footing that the shortage necessarily resulted from clandestine removal rather than from permissible wastage or other non-culpable causes.

Conclusion: The complaint was time-barred and the prosecution was premature, so the acquittal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 cannot be sustained when it is instituted beyond the limitation period prescribed by section 40(2), and criminal liability should not be fastened before the relevant departmental adjudication determines the nature and cause of the shortage.

---