1987 (11) TMI 88 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Representation of M/s. Duncan Tobacco Company in criminal case.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of representation of M/s. Duncan Tobacco Company, referred to as A-2 in the case, in a criminal matter. The Special Judge for Economic Offences had ordered that Shri G.P. Goenka, the Chairman of Duncan Agro Industries Ltd., should represent A-2. However, Shri G.P. Goenka challenged this order through a revision case under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

The case background reveals that Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. (referred to as A-1) had obtained licenses for manufacturing cigarettes and other commodities. A-1 had a cigarette factory renamed as "M/s. Duncan Tobacco Company-A Division of Duncans Agro Industries Limited." Subsequently, the name was changed to New Tobacco Company Ltd., which is denoted as A-3 in the case. The complaint alleged the movement of cigarettes without paying Excise duty, leading to legal proceedings against several individuals associated with A-1, A-2, and A-3 companies.

The petitioner's counsel argued that A-1 had no control over A-2 after 1984, and A-3 was the successor company of A-2. The counsel contended that A-8, as the Chairman of A-1, could not represent A-2. However, historical records and the application for a name change indicated that A-2 was a division of A-1 until 1984. The Calcutta High Court had approved the transfer of A-2 to A-3, but A-2 remained an accused in the case, necessitating representation by someone overseeing the company's affairs.

The judgment concluded that A-8 should represent A-2 during the trial, considering the historical association between A-1 and A-2. The petitioner raised concerns about document custody by A-3, but the Court deemed it a procedural matter that could be addressed with necessary directions. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the lower court's order for A-8 to represent A-2 in the ongoing criminal proceedings.