2013 (7) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f manufacture of biris and the removal of the same, illicitly, to the tune of Rs.15,50,88,000/- biris (inclusive of 86,400/- biris under seizure) and evasion of payment of central excise duty to the tune of Rs.5,76,726.15/- in contravention of Rule 9(1), 52-A, 53, 94 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The complainant has listed six witnesses and annexed 14 documents in order to prove the prosecution case. 2. In the said prosecution case, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined. Under the circumstances, the accused has filed discharge petition under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., to discharge them from the proceedings and the same has been resisted by the complainant/Assistant Collector, Central Excise, after filing detailed counter s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the affairs of the first accused company. As per Ex.P2, viz., statement of Mohammed Ishaq Sheriff, who is the main accused, it is evident that the revision petitioners herein are not necessary parties. As such, the original complaint is not maintainable against the accused 3 and 4 and the same was not considered by the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that authorization letter given by Commissioner, Central Excise to P.W.1 for laying the complaint, refers that the second accused, viz.,Mohammed Ishaq Sheriff alone should be prosecuted along with first accused Company. M/s.M.S.Abdullah Sons beedi factory. According to 9AA of the Central Excise and Salt Acts, in case, a company is pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... prosecution case has been levelled against all the accused. The learned counsel further pointed out that similar petitions had been filed by the accused for the same remedy and it was negatived by this Court. Again, similar petition has been filed by the accused which is nothing but creating multiplicity of proceedings, in order to drag on the prosecution case. Further, both the accused are necessary parties in these proceedings, as the prosecution case is in a partly heard stage. The learned counsel further contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after well considering the partnership deed, has concluded that the accused are partners in the first accused company. ....