Gujarat High Court
Mihir T Choksi vs Inspector(Preventive) on 19 February, 2013
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
MIHIR T CHOKSI, DIRECTOR OF GUJARAT CYPROMET LTDV/SINSPECTOR(PREVENTIVE) CENTRAL EXCISE, H.Q. AHMEDABAD-II R/SCR.A/2320/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2320 of 2012 ================================================================ MIHIR T CHOKSI, DIRECTOR OF GUJARAT CYPROMET LTD & 1....Applicant(s) Versus INSPECTOR(PREVENTIVE) CENTRAL EXCISE, H.Q. AHMEDABAD-II & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR BHARAT JANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2 MR YN RAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 19/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. The present petitioner has taken out this petition and prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions directing respondent No.1 authority to drop/close the proceedings of criminal case file under file No. V. Ch.74/15-06/PI-II/04-05 pending before the Hon'ble Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and further be pleased to direct learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to return passport of the petitioner No.1 lying in the office of the Hon'ble Court and respondent No.1 authority to return the passport of petitioner No.2 lying in the office of respondent No.1 authority.
2. On one hand, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no complaint/FIR filed against the petitioner and no proceedings is pending against the petitioner and on the other hand the petitioner has prayed that proceedings by way of criminal case file under file No. V. Ch.74/15-06/PI-II/04-05 may be directed to be dropped.
3. Mr. Bharat Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by Settlement Commission under provisions of Excise Act, 1944.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon provisions under Section 32 (K) of Excise Act, 1944.
5. Relying on the said order and the above mentioned provisions, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner are required to be dropped in view of the said order dated 31.08.2007 read with Section 32 (K) of Excise Act, 1944.
5. Mr. Ravani, learned advocate for CBI opposed the request and submitted that in view of proviso of Section 32 (K), the request cannot be entertained. He submitted that the application before the Settlement Commission was filed on 28.09.2005, whereas the complaint before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was filed on 13.01.2005 i.e. prior to the application before Settlement Commission and that in view of proviso of Section 32 (K), the request made by learned advocate for the petitioner is not sustainable.
6. After the above mentioned submissions by both sides, Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner wants to withdraw present petition at this stage and wants to make appropriate application before learned trial court with appropriate request.
7. Similarly, as regards the request made in connection with passport, it is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that passport was surrendered in light of the condition imposed in order granting bail to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, appropriate application will be made by the petitioner before appropriate Court with necessary request. Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that for the said purpose also, petitioner will make appropriate application before the appropriate Court and does not press present petition.
8. In view of the submissions and statement made by learned advocate for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed / withdrawn. If and when any application is preferred by the petitioner, the learned court will consider the same in accordance with law and in light of relevant provision under Code of Criminal Procedure and Excise Act, 1944 and shall decide the same in accordance with law and relevant provisions.
9. With above observations and directions, the present application is disposed of as not pressed / withdrawn.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Amar Page 3 of 3