ALIM AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for determination in this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the impugned order dated November, 29, 1994, of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan Jaipur directing to frame charges under Sections, 9(1)(bb), 9(1) (bbb) and 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is sustainable in the eye of law ?

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, necessary facts are narrated. M/s. Fancy Stones (India) Limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Company is engaged in the business of preparing/manufacturing Marble Slabs and Marble Tiles having its factory at village Pasund, District Udaipur. The factory was inspected by the officials of Central Customs Department on 1st December 1986, and the inspection was continued upto 3rd December. The inspection was made in presence of Shri A. Devraj acting Manager and Shri Mohanlal Kumawat Section-In-Charge/Works Supervisor of the factory. The statement of Shri A. Devraj was also recorded during inspection. On completion of inspection it was noticed that the Company has evaded or failed to pay Excise Duty in the tune of Rs. 93,894.09 and, thus, violated S. 9(1)(bb), 9(1)(bbb) and 9(1)(ii) of the Act. After obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution a complaint was filed against the petitioner on September 29, 1989, by the Superintendent (Prosecution) Central Production and Excise Duty.

(3.) The case was instituted otherwise than on police report i. e. on a private complaint and it was triable as a warrant case. Pre-charge prosecution evidence was recorded by the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 244 of the Code and statement of Shri S. C. Rawat (P.W. 1). Shri Gajraj Singh Shaktawat (P.W. 2), Shri Gautam Nath (P.W. 3), and Shri B. L. Sharma (P.W. 4), were recorded. Out of them, P.W. 1 to P.W. 3, are inspecting officers who also made a spot enquiry; while P.W. 4 Shri B. L. Sharma has filed the complaint after obtaining necessary sanction. The learned Magistrate, in the impugned order, has observed that P.W. 1, Shri S. C. Rawat, P.W. 2 Shri Gajraj Singh Shaktawat and P.W. 3 Shri Gautam Nath have not stated anything incriminating the petitioner in the crime. However, on the statement of P.W. 4 Shri B. L. Sharma, the learned Magistrate thought it proper to frame charges against the petitioner as aforesaid.