https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45020 Prior in-house conciliation directions for Government bodies and public sector undertakings do not bar criminal prosecution under excise law, because they were meant for inter se civil or monetary disputes and not for penal proceedings based on alleged suppression and evasion of duty. A Managing Director of a Government company is not automatically a public servant for Section 197 CrPC; the decisive test is whether the person is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or State, and that test was not met on the facts. Personal prosecution of the company officer was maintainable because the excise statute created vicarious liability and the complaint contained specific allegations of responsibility and gross negligence. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45020 Prior in-house conciliation directions for Government bodies and public sector undertakings do not bar criminal prosecution under excise law, because they were meant for inter se civil or monetary disputes and not for penal proceedings based on alleged suppression and evasion of duty. A Managing Director of a Government company is not automatically a public servant for Section 197 CrPC; the decisive test is whether the person is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or State, and that test was not met on the facts. Personal prosecution of the company officer was maintainable because the excise statute created vicarious liability and the complaint contained specific allegations of responsibility and gross negligence. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45020