1989 (9) TMI 115 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the complaint filed by a public servant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Requirement for the complainant to attend in person for filing the complaint.
3. Necessity of examining the complainant and witnesses before issuing process.
4. Sufficiency of the Magistrate's order issuing process.
5. Ambiguity and sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.
6. Impact of the adjudication order on the criminal proceedings.
7. Jurisdiction of the High Court in quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the complaint filed by a public servant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court examined whether the complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excises was valid under the proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that the complainant was a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties and was authorized under the Central Excise and Salt Act to file a complaint. The court found that the hierarchy of Central Excise Officers and their powers, including the power to file complaints, supported the validity of the complaint. Therefore, the Magistrate was not required to examine the complainant and witnesses before issuing process.

2. Requirement for the complainant to attend in person for filing the complaint:
The court addressed the contention that the complainant was required to attend the Magistrate's Court in person for filing the complaint. It was held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure mandating personal attendance of the complainant for filing the complaint. The court cited precedents to support the view that the complaint could be validly filed by an advocate on behalf of the complainant.

3. Necessity of examining the complainant and witnesses before issuing process:
The court discussed whether it was obligatory to examine the complainant and witnesses before issuing process when the complaint was filed by a public servant. The court emphasized that the proviso to Section 200 exempts the examination of the complainant and witnesses if the complaint is filed by a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties. The court rejected the argument that the allegations in the complaint needed to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant.

4. Sufficiency of the Magistrate's order issuing process:
The court considered whether the Magistrate's order issuing process was valid despite being brief and not providing detailed reasons. It was noted that Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require a reasoned order for issuing process. The court found that the Magistrate's order indicated a prima facie ground for initiating proceedings, which was sufficient at that stage. The absence of an elaborate order did not vitiate the process issued.

5. Ambiguity and sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint:
The court examined the allegations in the complaint and found that sufficient details were provided regarding the involvement of the accused. The complaint described the roles and responsibilities of the accused, including the two companies and their functionaries. The court held that the allegations were adequate to support the issuance of process.

6. Impact of the adjudication order on the criminal proceedings:
The court addressed the argument that the adjudication order, which held only the Bombay-based company liable, should lead to the dropping of criminal proceedings against the other accused. The court clarified that adjudication proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal trial and do not bar subsequent criminal proceedings. The court cited Section 9-AA and Section 9-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which provide for the criminal liability of individuals in charge of the company. The court concluded that the criminal proceedings could continue despite the adjudication order.

7. Jurisdiction of the High Court in quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The court reiterated the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings. It emphasized that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only concerned with the prima facie sufficiency of the allegations. The court found no grounds to quash the Magistrate's order issuing process and discharged the rule, vacating the stay.

In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excises, confirmed that the personal attendance of the complainant was not required, and found that the Magistrate's order issuing process was valid despite its brevity. The court also held that the criminal proceedings could continue despite the adjudication order and that the High Court's jurisdiction to quash proceedings was limited.

← Previous Next →