TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls on 3-9-1961, in all these five warehouses. Two of the Inspectors of the Excise Department attached to the Collector's office at Madras again inspected the warehouses on 15-10-1961,16-10-1961 and 17-10-1961, and checked the stock and continued the same till 21-10-1961. The stocks verified during these inspections from 15-10-1961 to 21-10-1961 were weighed and weighment sheets were prepared on each day and the signature of the petitioner was obtained in each one of these weighment sheets. Finding that there was a large deficiency in the stock and beedi, tobacco and cheroot tobacco were not stored in an orderly manner as required by the Rules, but were found fixed together, the Department issued a show cause notice on 31-10-1962, requiring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im in connection with the enquiry of deficit stocks and mixing of stock charged against the petitioner. But the enquiry officer refused to make available copies of these statements on the ground that the Department did not propose to rely on the said depositions in respect of the charges against the petitioner. Against this refusal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector, but without success. In fact, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no appeal against non-supply of copies of depositions. Thereafter the petitioner filed W.P. 971 of 1968 in this court praying for quashing of the rejection order and for directing the department to supply copies of the said statements. The writ petition was dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority offered the two Inspectors, for cross-examination by the petitioner, if he so desired and the petitioner had also cross-examined them. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 23-7-1975 and a further revision to the Government of India was also dismissed on 16-4-1977. It is at this stage that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It this writ petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner had raised two contentions. The first contention was that the stock taking during the period from 15-10-1961 to 21-10-1961 was not the usual stock taking and as a special stock taking, before any action is taken for such stock taking, the Collector should have exercised his mind at to the need for such stock taking an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-1961, and finding abnormal shortage the, reported to the Collector, who made an order on file on 17-10-1961, directing to have a special stock taking done in the petitioner's warehouses at Trivellore and this order was communicated to tbe Assistant Collector of Madras, who in turn, has directed the Inspectors to continue the inspection and conduct the special stock taking. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents on these facts was that originally the two Inspectors entered the premises for surprise inspection in exercise of their powers under Rule 197 and while so inspecting, finding some abnormal features and shortage in stock, reported the matter to the Collector, who in turn, ordered the special stock taking and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner that there was no valid proceedings of the Collector to have the special stock taking is, therefore, not acceptable. 4. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all along the had been questioning he weight shown the weighment sheets and the alleged shortage. In this connection the statement of the two Inspectors given in the departmental proceedings relating to the Inspector and the Deputy Superintendent above referred to would be relevant and he wanted copies of such statements. By non-furnishing of these statements, he has been prejudiced in the enquiry and that, therefore, the entirety of the proceeding is liable to be set aside. In this connection, he also referred to the order in the writ appeal whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to his agent's signing most of them and also the departmental authorities counter-signing the same. In the face of this signature obtained in the weighment sheet itself, it is too much now to contend that the weighment made were not correct. He had not attested the weighment sheets under protest. He had not stated at the earliest opportunity immediately after the weighments were done that the weighments were not correctly taken. It is only done after during the enquiry when he wanted the copies of the statements of the two inspectors in the departmental enquiry, he made an assertion that the weighments were not properly taken and that deficiency shown in the weighment sheets are not correct in addition to this the Inspectors were offered f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
