Bangalore District Court
The Joint Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Maruthi Clothing Company on 7 February, 2026
1 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT
KABC010176062020
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.735/2020
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. Maruthi Clothing Company,
No.7-D, Visveshwaraiah Industrial Area,
ITPL Main Road, Whitefield Road
Mahadevapura Post
Bengaluru-560 048
Represented by
Sri N.Rajesh, Managing Partner
2 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT
2. Sri N.Rajesh
Managing Partner
No.7-D, Visveshwaraiah Industrial Area,
ITPL Main Road, Whitefield Road
Mahadevapura Post
Bengaluru-560 048
R/at: No.245, Hema Enclave
3rd Main, Chamarajpet
Bengaluru-560 018
3. Sri M.Dhananjay
Manager (Finance & Accounts)
No.7-D, Visveshwaraiah Industrial Area,
ITPL Main Road, Whitefield Road
Mahadevapura Post
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.403/2014 by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the quantum of 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 3 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT 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.403/2014 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.403/2014 in the instant discussion for the purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confusion and perplexity.
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
"The prosecution case, in brief, is that the 1st respondent is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, falling within the purview 4 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was duly registered with the Central Excise Department during the relevant period. Respondent No.2 was functioning as the Managing Partner/Chief Executive Officer of the said company, while respondent No.3 was the Manager in charge of Finance and Accounts and was responsible for maintaining statutory records, filing returns and ensuring compliance with excise laws. It is alleged that during the period from March 2011 to November 2011, the respondents, acting in concert and in their respective capacities, deliberately devised and executed a scheme to clandestinely remove excisable goods without payment of duty and to suppress true production and clearance figures from the Department, thereby causing substantial loss to the Government exchequer.
It is further the case of the prosecution that in order to effectuate the said evasion, the respondents fabricated and forged statutory GAR-7 challans, misrepresented payment particulars, and deliberately failed to submit ER-1 monthly returns for the period from October 2011 to December 2011. The respondents are alleged to have 5 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT misapplied and misinterpreted tariff valuation notifications issued under Section 3(2) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 4(1A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, particularly Notifications No.20/2001-CE (NT), No.7/2011- CE (NT) and No.12/2011-CE (NT), with the intent to undervalue the excisable goods and thereby evade payment of duty. The modus operandi adopted by the respondents was systematic and deliberate, involving falsification of statutory documents and suppression of material facts, which, according to the prosecution, could not have occurred without the active knowledge and involvement of respondents No.2 and 3.
Upon receipt of specific intelligence, the Preventive Wing of the Central Excise Department conducted investigation and unearthed the large-scale evasion, whereupon it was found that the respondents had evaded payment of Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.2,02,74,163/- during the aforesaid period. Consequent upon the investigation, adjudication proceedings were initiated, culminating in confirmation of duty demand, 6 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT confiscation of goods and imposition of statutory penalty. Simultaneously, a criminal 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 Special Court took cognizance of the offences, issued summons to the accused, and upon appearance, the respondents filed an application under Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to plead guilty, which ultimately resulted in their conviction and the impugned order on sentence dated 30.03.2019."
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 7 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT 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 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 8 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT consideration section 9(3) of the Central Excise Act 1944 contemplates certain aspects as a sentence of special and adequate reasons for awarding 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 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.Vasavi 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) 9 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT 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 setaside.
e) The Special Court committed an error in considering the completion of the adjudication proceedings, confiscation of goods and levy/payment of penalty as an 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 an 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 1st respondent company and had an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Central Excise Act by paying the 10 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT 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 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.403/2014 dated 30.03.2019 by allowing this appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
11 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT
6. The respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, have strenuously contended that the sentence imposed does not warrant interference by this Court, as the conviction itself was founded upon their voluntary and unconditional plea of guilt under Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is urged that the respondents did not contest the prosecution case, did not protract the proceedings, and at the earliest available opportunity admitted their culpability, thereby saving valuable judicial time and resources. According to the respondents, such conduct demonstrates genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility, which the trial court rightly considered as a mitigating circumstance while determining the quantum of sentence. It is further contended that once a plea of guilt is voluntarily made and accepted, the sentencing court is vested with discretion to impose a sentence commensurate with the peculiar facts of the case, and the appellate court ought not to lightly interfere with such exercise of discretion, unless the same is manifestly perverse or illegal. 12 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT
7. The respondents have further contended that the adjudication proceedings under the Central Excise Act stood concluded much prior to the criminal trial, and that the entire duty liability, along with penalty and other statutory consequences, has already been borne by them. It is submitted that the confiscation of goods, levy of penalty and payment thereof have sufficiently compensated the revenue and served the fiscal object of the statute. According to the respondents, subjecting them once again to severe custodial punishment would amount to undue harshness and double jeopardy in substance, though not in form. They assert that the Special Court rightly took note of the fact that the alleged evasion did not result in any continuing loss to the exchequer and that the revenue has already been secured, and therefore, imposition of a lenient sentence was justified in the interests of equity and proportionality.
8. The respondents have also emphasized their personal circumstances, contending that respondents No.2 and 3 are middle-aged individuals with family 13 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT responsibilities and dependents, and that they are not habitual offenders nor involved in any other criminal activity. It is submitted that the offence was not committed with deliberate criminal intent but was the result of ignorance and misinterpretation of complex excise notifications and valuation provisions, which prevailed during the relevant period. The respondents further submit that they have suffered immense financial loss, reputational damage and mental agony on account of prolonged proceedings spanning several years, and that any further incarceration would cause irreparable hardship not only to them but also to their families. On these grounds, it is contended that the trial Court exercised its discretion judiciously by awarding the minimum possible punishment, and that no grounds are made out for enhancement of sentence as sought by the appellant- Revenue.
9. 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 14 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT quantum of sentence imposed by the Trial Court?
2) What order?
10. 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
11. Point No.1:- It is not in controversy that the respondents voluntarily entered a plea of guilt before the Trial Court and that the Trial 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.
12. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that while imposing sentence, the 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 15 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT prior criminal antecedents, the fact that 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 16 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 17 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT memorandum of appeal.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 the present appeal does not warrant further judicial consideration and is liable to be dismissed for non- 18 Crl.Apl.No.735/2020 JUDGMENT prosecution. Hence, the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
20. 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.403/2014 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) Digitally signed by SHIRIN JAVEED SHIRIN JAVEED ANSARI ANSARI Date: 2026.02.07 17:45:27 +0530 (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.