S.S.GREWAL,J - (1.) THIS part of heard case is being adjourned on the request of the petitioner's counsel since 27th August, 1993. Earlier also several adjournments were granted and on 11th December, 1992 the order passed was that no further adjournment shall be granted. Sh. P.C. Goyal, counsel for the petitioner is again not present to-day. Further proceedings before the trial court in this case were stayed as far as back on 7th October, 1991. There is thus no other option but to decide this case in his absence, after perusal of the record.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder, relates to quashment of complaint filed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Amritsar, against the present petitioners under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act read with Rules 9(1), 52(A), 173(G) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 and consequent proceedings taken thereunder by the C.J.M. Amritsar. According to the complainant-respondent M/s Varun Processors Pvt. Ltd. Company is a private limited concern working through its Directors namely Tarlok Chand Khanna and Rakesh Khanna and they are amenable to penal action as they were incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the said company and the offences complained against the accused have been committed with their consent or connivance and is attributable to their neglect. The said accused are responsible for all acts of omissions or commissions on behalf of the company including penal liabilities under the provisions of the law as the said Company is being run, controlled, managed and supervised by the said accused directly or indirectly for all purposes including accounts, all profits and losses and all payments to various Central Excise duties, maintenance of statutory records and other liabilities under the provisions of the Central Excise Law. It was further pleaded that on 1.8.1987 acting on information that the aforesaid company through its Directors (the present petitioners) is engaged in the manufacturing of processed man-made fabrics and they are clearing the said goods without payment of Central Excise Duty. A contingent of Central Excise Officials including P.Ws visited the above said premises. Rakesh Khanna accused was present in the factory at that time. On demand he produced the Central Excise as well as the other records. Stock of the finished man-made fabric as well as grey fabric was physically checked by the officials of the Central Excise Department. On physical verification stock of 2854.71 Sq. Mtrs. of processed man-made fabric was found in excess of the quantity shown in the RG-1 register for which no entry existed even in the Grey register. The said fabrics bear the lot number already allotted to other fabrics. The company has also not got approved the price list and classification list of the said fabrics from the department. On query Rakesh Khanna told the inspecting staff that lots No. 578 and 589 were put by them by mistake though it was not the same fabric as they had received under lot No. 578, were of the composition of 100 polyester, weft 48 x 52 poly cotton by the goods actually found bearing lot No. 578 were of the composition of Warf 100 polyester. Similarly, goods originally received under lot No. 589 was of the composition of warf and weft 48 x 52 by 48 x 52 polyester/cotton but the goods found on physical verification bearing lot No. 589 were of the composition of 100% polyester. The goods of lot No. 129 were found short than shown in the Central Excise records. The goods originally received under lots No. 129, 578 and 589 were found short in the stock and believed to have been cleared without issuing G.P.1 and the same quantity of grey fabrics have been replaced by allotting the same lot numbers. The finished goods bearing lot No. 16 was found in excess of the quantity shown in the grey-RG-1 registered and was found lying unaccounted for in the statutory record of the factory reasonably believed to be liable for confiscation. It was next pleaded that the said company tendered a voluntary written statement immediately after the seizure in which the manner and factum of recovery was admitted. It was also pleaded that on 1.8.1987 during the course of visit of the said officials two bundles of hand written paper slips were found. One bundle of slips marked A contained 589 slips and the second one marked B contained 153 slips. Ashok Kumar son of Amar Nath, an employee of the said firm admitted that the paper slips were written by him and these were packing slips of man-made fabrics processed and finished by the assessee and accused Rakesh Khanna had signed on the first and last slip of each bundle in confirmation of the fact that these have been resumed from their factory premises and belonged to the abovesaid firm. Scrutiny of these slips revealed that these contained the date-wise details of the man-made fabric and cotton fabric processed and finished by these accused during the month of May, 1987, the details whereof were also mentioned in para 4 of the complaint. It was further pleaded that on comparison all these packing slips tallied with those recorded on the Grey Fabrics Register and G.P.I's of the assessee showing that the fabrics mentioned in such packing slips were actually processed and finished by the assessee and removed on payment of Central Excise Duty and that the two bundles of slips in question in fact contained the quantities of man-made fabrics and Cotton Fabrics actually processed and finished by the asssessee. In most of the cases, although the particulars viz name of variety/quality width and lot numbers mentioned in the slips tally with those shown in the Grey Fabrics Register but the quantities of processed and finished man-made fabrics and cotton fabrics do not tally with those in the Grey Fabrics Register. This shows that the fabrics entered in such packing slips have been processed and finished by the assessee but were removed clandestinely without accounting in the statutory Central Excise records and without payment of Central Excise Duty, as per details mentioned in annexure R-2 attached with the complaint, and thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rules 9(1), 9(2), 52(A), 53, 173(G), 173(O) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended upto date by way of suppression of production worth Rs. 5,07,110/- and metres of processed and finished man-made fabrics valued at Rs. 1,10,36,0011-06 paise and removed the same clandestinely without accounting in their statutory Central Excise record and without payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,81,704-38 paise during the month of May, 1987 and further suppressed the production of 8689 square metres of processed and finished cotton fabrics valued at Rs. 1,10,145-82 paise without accounting in their statutory register and removed the same without payment of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 4561-73 paise.
(3.) WHILE dealing with the inherent powers of this Court for quashment of proceedings, it was observed by the Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, AIR 1989 SC 1, as under :- "That when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law constitute or spellout any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not." In view of the specific allegations made in the complaint referred to above, it cannot be said at this stage that no case for commission of offences under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rules 9(1), 9(2), 52(A), 53, 173(G), 173(O) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended upto date, has been spelt out for suppression of production of processed and finished man-made fabrics and their clandestine removal without payment of substantial amount of excise duty during May, 1987. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the continuation of proceedings on the basis of the said complaint before the trial court would amount to abuse of the process of the court. No ground for quashment of the impugned complaint or proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioners has been made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of this case on merits expeditiously according to law. It is however clarified that nothing herein observed for the disposal of this petition shall in any manner be construed to affect the rights of the parties on merits. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court (C.J.M.) Amritsar, for compliance.;