Bangalore District Court
The Joint Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Vasavi Apparels Pvt Ltd on 7 February, 2026
1 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT
KABC010176102020
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A.,LL.B (Hon`s) LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. (CCH70)
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2026
Crl.A.No.736/2020
Appellant: The Joint Commissioner of
Central Excise (Legal)
Bangalore
Now re-designated as
Joint Commissioner of Central Tax
Bangalore East Commissionerate
TTMC Building, 4th Building
Domlur
Bangalore-560 071
(Complainant/ Appellant)
(Sri K.V.Aravind, Senior Standing
Counsel for Appellant)
-V/s-
Respondents: 1. M/S. Vasavi Apparels Pvt Ltd.,
No.31/1A, 1st Cross,
2nd Stage, Doddanekkundi Industrial
Area, Whitefield Main Road
Bengaluru-560 048
2 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT
represented by
Sri N.Rajesh, Chief Executive Officer
2. Sri N.Rajesh
Chief Executive Officer
M/S. Vasavi Apparels Pvt Ltd.,
No.31/1A, 1st Cross,
2nd Stage, Doddanekkundi Industrial
Area, Whitefield Main Road
Bengaluru-560 048
R/at: No.245, Hema Enclave
3rd Main, Chamarajpet
Bengaluru-560 018
3. Sri M.Dhananjay
Manager (Finance & Accounts)
M/S. Vasavi Apparels Pvt Ltd.,
No.31/1A, 1st Cross,
2nd Stage, Doddanekkundi Industrial
Area, Whitefield Main Road
Bengaluru-560 048
R/at. No.27, 2nd Cross
A.Narayanapura
Bengaluru-560 016
(Sri S.G.Lokesh, Advocate for
Respondent No.1 and 2)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant calling in question the judgment dated 30.03.2019 passed in C.C. No.404/2014 by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the quantum of 3 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents were convicted on their plea of guilt and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two days and to pay fine as ordered by the Trial Court.
2. Being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the impugned order of conviction, the complainant has preferred the present appeal under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside the same.
3. The complainant in CC No.404/2014 before the trial court has preferred the instant appeal against the accused. The appellant and respondent are hereby assigned with their original ranks before the trial court i.e., the appellant as complainant and respondent as accused in CC No.404/2014 in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confusion and perplexity.
4 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
"It is the case of the prosecution that the 1st respondent is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of excisable goods, and that respondents No.2 and 3 were, at the relevant point of time, the Managing Director/CEO and the Manager (Finance & Accounts) respectively, being in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and statutory compliances of the company. It is alleged that during the period from March-2011 to November-2011, the respondents clandestinely removed excisable goods without payment of central excise duty, deliberately suppressed statutory ER-1 returns and fabricated GAR-7 challans, thereby evading payment of duty to the tune of Rs.2,02,74,163/-.
It is further alleged that the respondents adopted a calculated and pre-meditated modus operandi with the sole intention of defrauding the Government exchequer by misrepresenting facts, forging statutory documents and violating the tariff valuation notifications issued under the 5 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT Central Excise Act and the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Upon detection of the evasion by the preventive wing of the department, investigation was undertaken, adjudication proceedings were initiated, confiscation of goods was ordered and penalties were levied.
Consequent upon completion of investigation, a complaint was filed before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Trial Court took cognizance, issued summons and secured the appearance of the accused. During the course of trial, the respondents filed an application under Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to plead guilty.
After recording the plea of guilt and satisfying itself that the same was voluntary, the Trial Judge convicted the respondents and by judgment dated 30.03.2019, sentenced Accused No.1 - Company to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and Accused Nos.2 and 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for two days and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- 6 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT each."
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, the appellant being complainant before the trial court has preferred the instant appeal against the respondent who were the accused before the trial court on the following:
GROUNDS OF APPLEAL
a) The Special Court failed to take into consideration that the amount of duty sought to be evaded is Rs.2,02,74,163/-
and hence in view of section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act 1944, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a period of 7 years and with fine. The Special Court has imposed sentence only for a period of 2 days and the same is in contravention of section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and is liable to be set aside.
b) The Special Court failed to take into consideration that but for the detection of evasion by the preventive unit, the evasion of duty would not have been paid by the respondents and the evasion was 7 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT with a clear intention to evade the duty. In the circumstances, though proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 empowers the special court to reduce the imprisonment from 7 years, reduction was without presence of any special and adequate reasons. Without prejudice to the above contention it is submitted that in the absence of any extraordinary adequate reasons, the Special Court committed an error in imposing a sentence of less than 6 months which is the minimum time prescribed.
c) The special court failed to take into consideration section 9(3) of the Central Excise Act 1944 contemplates certain aspects as special and adequate reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 6 months. It is submitted that as per section 9(3) (i) of the Central Excise Act 1944, the fact that the accused has been convicted for the first-time for an offence under the Act is not the reason to be considered for awarding sentence for a period less than 6 8 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT months. Whereas the special court has assigned that the respondents are not habitual offenders, which is contrary to the reasons not to be assigned/considered as per section 9(3)(i) of the Central Excise Act 1944 for awarding sentence for a period of less than 6 months. It is further submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have committed similar offence in another company M/s. Vasar Apparels (P) Ltd which would establish the motive.
d) The Special Court committed an error in considering the age of the respondent 2 and 3 as an adequate reason to award sentence for a period of less than 6 months, when provisions of section 9(3)
(iv) of the Central Excise Act 1944 mandates not to consider the age of the accused as adequate reason for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 6 months. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
e) The Special Court committed an error in considering the completion of the adjudication proceedings, confiscation of 9 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT goods and levy/payment of penalty as a adequate reason to award sentence for a period of less than 6 months, whereas provisions of section 9(3)(ii) of the Central Excise Act 1944 mandates not to consider the payment of penalty, confiscation of goods or any other action taken against the assessee which constitutes offence as a adequate reason for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 6 months.
f) The special court failed to take into consideration that respondents 2 and 3 were responsible for day-to-day affairs of the 1 respondent company and had an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Central Excise Act by paying the requisite duty and maintain the accounts in the prescribed manner. It is submitted that the devise adopted by the 2nd and 3rd respondents to evade payment of duty would not have been detected but for the action initiated by the preventive unit of the revenue. As the payment of duty was not voluntary, the Special Court committed an error in considering the 10 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT hardship of the 2nd and 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that considering the quantum of evasion to an extent of Rs 2.02 crores, the Special Court committed an error in taking a lenient view. Without prejudice to the above contention, it is submitted that even if the lenient view is to be taken, the period of imprisonment should not have been for a period of less than 6 months.
On these and other allied grounds, the appellant/complainant pray before this court to call for entire records from the trial court, set aside the impugned judgment conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court in CC No.404/2014 dated 30.03.2019 by allowing this appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
6. On the basis of the materials available on record following points arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the appellant has made out any ground to interfere with the quantum of sentence imposed by the Trial Court?
2) What order?11 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- It is not in controversy that the respondents voluntarily entered a plea of guilt before the Trial Court and that the learned Special Judge, after due compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceeded to record conviction and determine the appropriate sentence upon hearing both the prosecution as well as the accused. The conviction, therefore, is founded upon an unequivocal admission of guilt and stands on a firm legal footing.
9. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that while imposing sentence, the learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration the totality of circumstances attending the case. The Court has adverted to the personal circumstances of the accused, their age, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the fact that 12 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT adjudication proceedings had already culminated in confiscation of goods and levy and payment of penalty, and has consciously exercised discretion by invoking the proviso to Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The sentencing discretion, therefore, has been exercised on a rational and judicious assessment of mitigating circumstances.
10. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that sentencing is primarily within the province of the trial court, which has the advantage of observing the demeanour of the accused and appreciating the factual matrix at close quarters. Unless the sentence imposed is demonstrated to be manifestly illegal, grossly disproportionate, perverse, or shockingly inadequate so as to shock the judicial conscience, the appellate court would ordinarily refrain from substituting its own discretion for that of the trial court.
11. In the present case, upon an overall consideration of the material on record and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, this Court does not find any 13 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT such illegality, perversity or gross disproportion which would warrant appellate interference. The sentence imposed, viewed in the context of the mitigating factors adverted to by the Trial Court, cannot be characterised as shockingly inadequate so as to call for enhancement by this Court.
12. In the absence of any compelling or exceptional circumstances demonstrated by the appellant to justify interference, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit and does not warrant any interference with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
13. The records unmistakably disclose that after institution of the present appeal, the appellant- Department has consistently remained absent and has failed to advance any submissions for prosecuting the appeal on merits, notwithstanding repeated and sufficient opportunities granted by this Court. The persistent non- appearance and indifference on the part of the appellant demonstrate a clear lack of prosecutorial diligence and evince an abandonment of the challenge laid under the 14 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT memorandum of appeal.
14. It is further evident that the scope of the present appeal is confined only to the question of quantum of sentence imposed by the Trial Court. However, the appellant has neither placed any additional material nor addressed any oral submissions to substantiate the grounds urged, thereby leaving the appeal wholly unsupported by argument or evidentiary reinforcement.
15. It is trite that an appeal is but a continuation of the original proceedings and the burden squarely lies upon the appellant to actively and diligently prosecute the same. The Court is not expected to don the mantle of the litigant, nor is it obliged to embark upon a roving or speculative enquiry in the absence of assistance from the party who has invoked its appellate jurisdiction.
16. In the absence of any prosecutorial assistance and in view of the continued and unexplained non- prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that 15 Crl.Apl.No.736/2020 JUDGMENT the present appeal does not warrant further judicial consideration and is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. Hence, the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
17. Point No.2:- In view of the reasons mentioned above and the findings arrived at on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is hereby dismissed.
The Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 30.03.2019 passed in C.C. No.404/2014 by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
Office is directed to send back the trial court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith.
(Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of February, 2026) SHIRIN Digitally signed by SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI JAVEED Date: 2026.02.07 ANSARI 17:45:45 +0530 (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.