OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two sets of matters have been heard together, one relating to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the other involving the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the issue in both sets of matters is the same. The common question in these two sets of matters is that since all offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962, are non-cognizable, are such offences bailable Although, the provisions of both the two Acts in this regard are pari materia to each other, we shall first take up the matters relating to the Central Excise Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as "the 1944 Act", namely, (1) Writ Petition (Crl) No.66 of 2011, Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., which has been heard as the lead case, (2) Writ Petition No.85 of 2010 and (3) Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.74, 87, 101 and 102 of 2011.

(2.) Section 9A of the 1944 Act, which was introduced in the Act with effect from 1st September, 1972, provides that certain offences are to be non- cognizable. Since we shall be dealing with this provision in some detail, the same is extracted hereinbelow :-

(3.) What is important is the non-obstante clause with which the Section begins and in very categorical terms makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under Section 9 of the 1944 Act would be deemed to be non-cognizable within the meaning of the Code. In fact, Sub- section (2) of Section 9A also provides for compounding of offences upon payment of the compounding amount with the exceptions as mentioned in the proviso thereto.