Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S. Shelly Dimac Polymers Pvt Ltd on 13 December, 2016

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S. Shelly Dimac Polymers Pvt Ltd on 13 December, 2016

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                               1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.207 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Assistant Commissioner of
Central Excise (Legal),
Bangalore -I, Commissionerate,
C.R.Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
                                     ...APPELLANT
(By Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate)

AND:

1.     M/s. Shelly Dimac Polymers
       Private Limited,
       Plot No.160, Bommasandra
       Industrial Area,
       Bangalore - 562 158.
       (Company registered under
       Companies Act,
       Represented by its Director,
       Rakesh Sud)

2.     Rakesh Sud,
                                 2




       Managing Director of
       M/s. Shelly Dimac Polymers
       Private Limited,
       Residing at No.6-C,
       Sukhi Apartment,
       No.17, Rhenius Treat,
       Langford Town,
       Bangalore - 560 025.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                             *****
      This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the
code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the order dated 27.7.2015 passed
by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences),
Bangalore     in    C.C.No.136/2011       -    acquitting   the
respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 9
and 9AA of the Central Excise Act.

      This appeal coming on for Orders       this day, the Court
delivered the following:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. While considering the application for grant of special leave, it is to be noticed on the face of it that the judgment of the Trial Court is a well-reasoned order and runs into great details.

3. The sum and substance of the appellant's case is that the accused - respondent had used H-100 EY Grade granules in the production of plastic woven sacks. Whether the company had used such material in their production or not was the main question. The court below on a detailed examination of the evidence tendered, has noticed that the date of investigation was 29.07.1998 and the mahazar of seizures made was also of the same date, whereas the offences related to a period between December 1996 and February 1998. Therefore, the court has observed that there was total disconnect as regards the material that could be seized and the investigation that could have been made in respect of an event which had occurred much earlier. Hence, the date on which the investigation was said to have been commenced itself being inconsistent and not reconcilable, the court below on a detailed discussion of the evidence which has again not supported the case of the prosecution having acquitted the accused, cannot be faulted. 4

4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would seek to contend that the matter would require a closer examination, the bare facts narrated above would indicate that the investigation and prosecution was apparently after a belated period of time, much like barn doors being closed after the horse has bolted. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition and the question of granting special leave does not arise.

The appeal is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court