UMESH GOPICHAND GOEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, rule is fixed forthwith. The question that has come for consideration in this case is whether sanction under Sec. 197 is necessary from the Central Government before prosecuting the applicants for the offence punishable under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The second respondent - Manishbhai was working as an Assistant Dying Master with Vishnu Dying and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kadodara at Surat. In the year 1998, the applicant no.1 was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II, Surat-1, whereas the applicant no.2-B.P. Meena and applicant no.3-K.C. Meena were posted and working as Inspector with the Excise Department, Surat. On the basis of intelligence with respect to large scale evasion of Central Excise Duty by M/ s.Vishnu Dying Mill, the applicant no.1-U.G. Goel, being Assistant Commissioner, raided the premises for preventing checks. The applicant no.1 along with applicant nos.2 and 3 visited the place at about 18:00 hours on 24/4/1998 and carried out extensive search in the presence of two independent panch - witnesses. The Directors of the Mill and other employees including respondent no.2 - Manishbhai, Assistant Dying Master were present at the place. During the search, the incriminating material like delivery challans, pocket diaries, registers, note-books were seized and recovered from the office of respondent no.2 and area of the mill. During the raid, the respondent no.2-Manish Bagdawala, alleged that he was assaulted by the applicant no.1 so as to pressurize him to confess the certain things. He complained of acute stomach pain and was taken to Sanjivani Hospital at Surat where he refused to take further medical treatment and nothing against the applicants, stated in the form of history before the doctor. On the next day i.e. 25/4/1998, he filed an FIR being I- C.R.No.77 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Ss. 342, 330, 323, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the officer of the Excise Department. On the same day, the applicant no.1 had also lodged an FIR against the respondent no.2 and others inter alia alleging therein that the accused have obstructed the raid proceedings and tried to take away the seized incriminating material.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders passed by the courts below i.e. 30/4/2012 and 12/7/2014, the applicants - original accused have preferred this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash the impugned orders as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 371 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sec. 504 of the IPC.