CHANDPAKLAL RAMANLAL SHAH Vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 17th Oct., 2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 2014. Thereby, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court dated 22nd March, 2013 and discharged the respondent in Criminal Case No.441 of 1987 under Sec. 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act) read with Rules 52A, 56A, 173G, 9(2) and 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) read with Sec. 11-A of the Act.

(2.) Complaint dated 4th Aug., 1987 was filed by the appellant in his capacity as Superintendent, Central Excise, Group -II, Central Excise Collectorate, Hqrs. Jivabha Mension, Ahmedabad alleging commission of offence mentioned in the complaint. The trial Magistrate summoned the accused. On 20th May, 1994, Rule 56A was omitted by a notification. On that basis, the respondent filed an application for discharge. The application was rejected and charge was framed by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 22nd March, 2013 as follows :

(3.) The respondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition. The High Court has allowed the revision petition. It was held that since Rule 56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause, proceedings could not continue. Referring to Sec. 38A added to the Act by the Finance Act, 2001, it was observed that Explanation to Sec. 132 of the Finance Act, 2001, laid down that an act or omission, which would not have been punishable but for the said section, will not be punishable. It was also observed that omission of the provision was not at par with repeal and Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to repeal of a rule. Reliance was placed on Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, (1969) 2 SCC 412 and Kohlapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 536. Hence this appeal.