G D SHARMA R N TYAGI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been heard together as the question for consideration is the same in both of them. In Cri. Appeal No. 188 of 1957 the appellant is G. D. Sharma who was Supervisor of the Central Excise Department. In Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1957 the appellant is R. N. Tyagi who was also a Supervisor in the Central Excise Department. They were both posted at Aliganj in the District of Etah in the State of Uttar Pradesh. These two appellants were tried separately and one Om Prakash was a co-accused with them respectively in each of the cases. Om Prakash was the proprietor of the firm M/s. Torhi Lal Om Prakash which carries on business in tobacco at Aliganj.

(2.) According to the prosecution, tobacco is an excisable article and licences are issued by the Central Excise Department to certain dealers in tobacco. Dealers in tobacco can enter into transactions only up to the quantity stated in their licences. If they sell or transport a larger quantity they have to obtain special transport permits on which they have to pay excise duty. In October, 1950 it was discovered that on account of a conspiracy between the appellants and Om Prakash the Government was being defrauded of large sums of money as there was evasion to pay the necessary excise duty by the issuing of fictitious transport permits by the appellants.

(3.) A general outline, without mentioning details, of the method adopted by the appellants and Om Prakash to evade the payment of excise duty may be now stated. In the case in which the appellant Sharma and Om Prakash were accused, the alleged forged transport permit is Ext. P-4 dated the 20th of August, 1950. In the case in which the appellant Tyagi and Om Prakash were accused the transport permit is also Ext. P-4 dated the 12th of May, 1950. The former transport permit showed that tobacco had been received by Om Prakash from a tobacco dealer by the name of Harbans Lal and a number of sale notes were recorded in it. Harbans Lal was not a dealer of tobacco. He lived with Om Prakash and could not and did not issue any sale note. In the latter transport permit Om Prakash is said to have received tobacco from one Ram Sarup. In this permit also false entries of sale notes were recorded. According to Ram Sarup, he had never applied for such a transport permit and certainly had not supplied the tobacco. On the same date transport permits were issued to Om Prakash for the sale and transport of his tobacco to other persons. In those permits it was mentioned that the excise duty had been paid on permits No. 670953 dated 20-8-1950 and No. 670832 dated 12-5-1950 issued to Harbans Lal and Ram Sarup respectively. As the result of the issue of fictitious transport permits in the name of Harbans Lal and Ram Sarup, Om Prakash was able to transport a large quantity of tobacco to other persons without paying the requisite excise duty on the tobacco covered by those transport permits and to that extent the Government had been deprived of the excise duty payable on the tobacco transported.