NARESH GOYAL Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C") arise out of Crime No. 11 of 2008 of Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, which is pending in committal proceedings, C.P.No.6 of 2010 in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam. Petitioners are accused 6 to 8 in the case. Offences alleged against them in Annexure-XII final report are under Sections 6, 10 and 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077) (for short, "Abkari Act"). Cri.M.C.No.1095 of 2010 is taken as the leading case for clarity and convenience.

(2.) 8Th accused is the petitioner in Cri. M.C. No.1095 of 2010. He is the Chairman of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "Company"). 7th accused, at the relevant time, was working as the General Manager of Warehouse and Distribution of the Company. 6th accused then was working as the Purchase Manager in the Company. Company is operating international flight services from Cochin too. For serving 'champagne' (a group of wine-mild alcoholic drink) to the passengers travelling in the international flights, Purchase Manager of the Company placed orders to M/s. Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing 30 cases of champagne on specific conditions. After complying with all the formalities, 30 cases of champagne were imported. While transporting the goods from, Panvel, Mumbai to Cochin on a valid bond to bond transfer permit issued by the Customs, it was intercepted by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the goods were handed over to the 1st respondent. 1 st respondent in turn, registered the abovesaid crime. Petitioners allege that both the authorities did not verify the valid documents produced at the time of seizure. Seizure, registering of crime and all subsequent proceedings, according to the petitioners, are vitiated by mala fides, absence of jurisdiction and ultra vires of their authority.

(3.) Annexure IX, final report was filed by the Excise Circle Inspector, Ernakulam before the learned Magistrate. Initially there were only three accused. Subsequent to the filing of Annexure IX final report, the Excise Inspector filed a report before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case. That is Annexure X. Learned Magistrate as per Annexure X(a) order, granted permission. Pursuant to that, further investigation was conducted and Annexure-XI, report was filed. As per this report, the investigating agency added accused 4 to 8 in the crime and deleted cfrom the original report. Annexure XII is the final report, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioners.