Prosecution under Central Excise law held unsustainable where prior adjudication negated the alleged statutory violation.

Prosecution of the company under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act was found unsustainable because the material on record did not justify criminal action and the Tribunal's final order had already resolved the underlying issue against any statutory violation. The Special Judge's discharge order was therefore justified, and the High Court's interference with that discharge was held unwarranted. The discharge order was restored in favour of the company.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the company was sustainable after the discharge order and the Tribunal's final order on the same underlying issue.

Analysis: The Special Judge had found that the materials on record did not justify prosecution of the company. The Tribunal's earlier final order was treated as having resolved the underlying question against any statutory violation warranting criminal action. The High Court's interference with the discharge order was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The prosecution of the company was not sustainable and the discharge order was restored in its favour.

---