TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 40 of the Act. Appeal dismissed. - 194 and 195 of 1969 - - - Dated:- 8-8-1972 - S.M. Sikri C.J., A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy snd K.K. Mathew, JJ. [Judgment per : Ray., J.]. - These two appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 21 November, 1968 of the High Court at Madras dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Sessions Judge dated 16th November, 1965 acquitting the respondents. 2. The question which falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to for brevity as the Section and the Act. The section is as follows : "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the exemption of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the Act or order complained of." 3. The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted for violation of rules 9, 53, 54, 67, 68, 70, 71, 76 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under section 9(b) and (d) of the Act and also under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The further details of the complaint were that the register R.G. 1 was not written out from 2 July, 1964 and R.G. 3 register was not correctly maintained. There was also a shortage of 50 leaves of banderols in stock. 6. In Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1969 the complaint was against accused No. 1 the licensee of Meenachi Match Works and accessed No. 2 husband of accused No. 1 who was running the factory and maintaining accounts. The complaint against the accused was that on 20, June 1964 the Central Excise staff visited the factory and found that the factory was working at night. On inspection it was found that cut banderols instead of full banderols had been pasted on certain quantities of match boxes with a view to evade payment of excise duty in violation of rules 64, 68 and 70 of the Central Excise Rules. The further allegations in the complaint were that on inspection of lorry despatches and clearances of the factory, it was found that during 1963-64 and 1964-65 upto 20 June, 1964 the licensee had actually cleared without entry in the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion consists of the two sub-sections. The first sub-section speaks of bar of suits against the Central Government or against any officer of the Government in respect of any order passed in good faith or any act in good faith done or ordered to be done under the Act. The second sub-section speaks of limitation of suits, prosecution or other legal proceeding for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of. The two sub-sections operate in different fields. The first sub-section contemplates bar of suits against the Central Government or against the officers by protecting them in respect of orders passed in good faith or acts done in good faith. It is manifest that the second sub-section does not have any words of restriction or limitation of class of persons unlike sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) does not have any words of qualification as to persons. Therefore, sub-section (2) is applicable to any individual or persons. 11. Reference may be made to some statutes to indicate as to how the Legislature places bar against any class of persons in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit or prosecution has been instituted within four months from the date of the act complained of. The Bombay statute typifies in Section 24 (2) limitation of suit and prosecution by restricting the operation of the provisions only against the Government and Tobacco officers. 15. The Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Goods) Act, 1962 has comparable provisions in Section 25 thereof by providing that no suit or other proceeding shall be instituted against the State and no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall be instituted against any officer or servant of the Government in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act, unless the suit, prosecution or other proceeding is instituted within one year from the date of the act complained of. 16. These different statutes have been mentioned only to indicate that where the legislature intends to restrict the limitation of suits, proceedings or prosecutions against the Government servants only the Legislature has chosen proper words of limitation to ensure the restricted operation of the provisions of the statute. 17. The provisions contained in Section 40 of the Act in the present case show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner as is "prescribed in these Rules. If excisable goods are in contravention of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 removed from any place the manufacturer shall pay duty leviable on such goods and shall also be liable to a penalty. Rule 53 deals with daily stock account. Every manufacturer shall maintain a stock account in the proper form and is required to enter in such account daily the weights, descriptions and rating of all excisable goods. Matches are dealt with in Rules 58 to 82. Rule 64 requires that each box or booklet of matches shall bear banderol. Duty on matches is paid by affixing to each box or booklet a Government banderol of a value appropriate to the rate of duty. Rule 65 states that all banderols shall be procured from a Government Treasury. Rule 66 provides that banderols are to be kept in a secured place and are to be periodically inspected. Rule 67 requires the manufacturer to maintain account of banderols purchased and used. Rule 68 deals with the manner of affixing banderols. Every banderol shall be so affixed that the words and figures on the banderol specifying the maximum number of matches covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held to be prosecution for something done under the provisions of the Act. 23. This Court in Maulud Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 38 considered the case of prosecution of a Head Constable. Section 42 of the Police Act was invoked as a bar to the prosecution. In Maulud Ahmad's case (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 38 (supra) the question was whether Chauhan abetted Maulud Ahmad in making false entries in the General Diary of Police Station, Mailani and whether Maulud Ahmad made false entries in the General Diary of Police Station, Mailani with the intention to save or knowing it likely that he would thereby save the offenders from legal punishment. This Court in Maulud Ahmad's case (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 38 (supra) said that if the appellant did not discharge his duty in keeping a regular diary he had committed an offence under section 29 of the Act. 24. In Sitaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 21= (AIR 1962 S.C. 1146) this Court examined a criminal trial in respect of the offence of filing false returns of sales tax. Section 26 of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 provided inter alia that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
