2017 (5) TMI 1250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igence, Rajkot Regional Unit, Rajkot. (c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this application, to stay implementation and operation of the order dated 22/02/2017 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.111 of 2016 by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Court No.8, Rajkot at AnnexureH. (d) To dispense with filing of certified copy of the arrest memo at AnnexureA and certified copy of the order dated 22/02/2017 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.111 of 2016 by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Court No.8, Rajkot at AnnexureH and an order dated 23/02/2017 at AnnexureI as the same are produced in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6216 of 2017. (e) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of the petitioners. (f) To provide for the cost of this petition. 2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under: 2.1 The applicants herein are engaged in the business of manufacturing of ceramic tiles. They are carrying on business in the name of M/s. Lexona Ceramic. M/s. Lexona Ceramic is a Partnership Firm and the two applicants herein are the Partners of the said Fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty payable under this Act; (bb) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder or in any way concerns himself with such removal; (bbb) acquires possession of, or in any way concerns himself in transporting, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act or any rule made thereunder; (d) attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, any of the offences mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this section; Further, S.9A[1A] of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as follows: "The offences relating to excisable goods where the duty leviable thereon under this Act exceeds Two Crores rupees and punishable under clause (b) or clause (bbbb) of the section (1) of section 9, shall be cognizable and nonbailable." 2.3 On the production of the two applicants herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, an application was filed seeking regular bail under Section439 of the Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot having regard to the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent No.2. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the final disposal of this application. 5. Mr. P.M.Thakkar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Chetan Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants vehemently submitted that in the first place, the criminal revision was not maintainable. The Sessions Court could not have exercised its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of cancelling the bail. The second submission of the learned senior counsel is that even otherwise there was no good reason for the Sessions Court to cancel the bail granted by the learned Magistrate. Mr. Thakkar pointed out that out of 3.57 crore, an amount of Rs. 2.62 crore has already been deposited by the applicants with the Department. Mr. Thakkar further submits that the balance amount of about Rs. 95 lac was also be deposited by his clients in equal monthly installment of Rs. 10,00,000/( Rupees Ten lac Only). According to Mr. Thakkar, the offence under Section9 of the Central Excise Act is a Magistrate triable offence and the maximum punishment that the Court can impose, if ultimately, the applicants are held to be guilty, is seven years. 6. On the other....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of such interlocutory order." 11. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Namdeo Raoji and others, (1991)1 Mah. L.R. 379, held that orders of bail are essentially interlocutory orders and the revision is barred under section397( 2) of the Cr. P.C. The above decisions support the contentions that order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory one and the reason is that the application for grant of bail can be renewed from time to time. 12. Thus, in the first instance, there was a inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Sessions Court in entertaining the criminal revision application. If at all the Sessions Court wanted to cancel the bail, the same could have been in exercise of power under Section439( 2) of the Cr.P.C. It can be argued that what difference would it make. If ultimately there is a power, the Sessions Judge could have exercised the same. It makes a lot of difference because the considerations would differ and vary. The rejection of bail in a nonbailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circ....