Prima facie criminal evidence is required for excise-duty evasion; adjudication orders alone cannot sustain prosecution.

At the discharge stage, criminal prosecution for alleged central excise-duty evasion requires a strong suspicion based on material capable of becoming admissible evidence; the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or require certainty of conviction. Although witnesses proved the existence of show-cause notices and excise adjudication orders, they lacked personal knowledge of the alleged evasion, the underlying records were not produced, and the investigation did not identify the methods of evasion. Adjudicatory findings and penalties alone cannot establish criminal liability without independent admissible evidence. The accused were therefore properly discharged for want of a prima facie case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused were rightly discharged from prosecution for alleged evasion of central excise duty and non-compliance with adjudicatory orders.

Analysis: At the discharge stage, a strong suspicion founded on material capable of translation into evidence is necessary; the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess whether conviction is certain. The prosecution witnesses substantially proved show-cause notices and orders of excise authorities, but lacked personal knowledge of the alleged evasion. The underlying records were not produced, and the investigating witness did not specify the methods by which duty was allegedly evaded. Adjudicatory findings and penalties could not by themselves establish criminal liability, which required independent assessment on admissible evidence.

Conclusion: The discharge was justified because the prosecution material did not establish a prima facie case of excise-duty evasion against the accused; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

---