Thomas, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) It is necessary to comply with the precautions envisaged in S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') when Customs Officers record statement under S. 108 of the Customs Act A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that it is necessary if the statements were to be used against the maker thereof and that view was followed by a single Judge of the same High Court in the present case which resulted in refusal of leave to appeal when an order of acquittal was challenged in the High Court. This appeal, by special leave, is against the said order of refusal passed by the single Judge.
(3.) Certain companies which engaged in manufacturing cigarettes, along with some of their Directors were prosecuted before the Court of a Special Judge (Economic Offences) at Hyderabad for offences under different clauses of S. 9(1) of the Central Excise Act and under S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Judge after holding inquiry framed charges against the respondents for the aforesaid offences and proceeded with the trial but in the end he acquitted all of them. The gist of the allegations against them is that the respondent-Company, which engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes during the period between 1-9-1981 and 30-11-1985, removed large quantities of cigarettes from their factories at Biccavolu without accounting them and without paying excise duty. The further allegation is that large quantities of cigarettes were concealed in their godowns without accounting them and in the above process a very huge amount of central excise duty was evaded fraudulently. Such acts were done by the respondent pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched and perpetrated by them.;