SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. VASU CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking for enhancement of the following punishment imposed on the respondents/accused by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, vide Judgment dtd. 17/2/2003, in C.C. No. 4 of 2002 : Sl. No. Respondents/Accused Conviction Sentence/Fine 1. R1, R2 & R13/A1, A2 & A13 Ss. 9(1)(a)(i), 9(1)(b) (i), 9(i)(bb)(i) & 9(1)(c)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Fine of Rs.1,000.00 for each offence, in default, R2 & R3/A2 & A13 to undergo 1 Month R.I. (in total Rs.12,000.00)

(2.) R2 & R13/A2 & A13 R3 to R9, R11 & 12/A3 to A9, A11 & A12 Ss. 9(1)(a)(i), 9(1)(b) (i), 9(i)(bb)(i) & 9(1)(c)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 9(1)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Simple imprisonment till raising of the Court

(3.) R3 to R12/A3 to A12 9(1)(d)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, R10 being a Firm, R3 to R9, R11 & R12/A3 to A9, A11 & A12 to undergo 1 Month S.I. (in total Rs.10,000.00) 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner/complainant had filed the private complaint in C.C. No. 4 of 2002, against the respondents/accused for the offences under various provisions of the Central Excise Act for having evaded payment of the Central Excise duty (during the period between 1/4/1993 and 11/10/1996) to the tune of Rs.46,58,289.00 by non-observing the Central Excise procedures and formalities, mis-declaring the variety of the manufactured products, suppressing the value of bills made by them without payment of duty and wilfully raising bogus invoices suppressing the value of goods. The first accused is a Firm engaged in the manufacture of detergent bars used for washing stainless steel vessels, the second accused is the Manager of the first accused/Firm, accused Nos. 3 to 5 are the persons in-charge and responsible for the first accused/Firm, who had knowingly and wilfully colluded in the offence and accused Nos. 6 to 9 and 11 & 12 and 10th accused/Firm were the distributors and agents of the first accused/Firm, who had knowingly and wilfully colluded with the accused in the tax evasion. After issuance of summons, during trial, fifteen witnesses were examined and 316 exhibits were marked on the side of the petitioner/complainant and the Trial Court found the accused guilty. However when the respondent/accused were questioned with regard to the award of sentence for they had submitted that they had been appearing before the Appellate Tribunal for several years and that their business was not doing good and had prayed for imposition of lesser fine amount. Though proviso to Sec. 9(1) of the Central Excise Act states that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the Court, the Court shall not impose punishment for a term of less than six months, the Trial Court had, by judgment dtd. 17/2/2003, without assigning and recording special and adequate reasons to the contrary, imposed fine and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the Court. The said judgment is under challenge before this Court in the present revision. 3. Initially, the present case was filed as a criminal appeal in Crl. A. No. 907 of 2003 and by Order dtd. 17/7/2013, this Court, after hearing both the counsels for the petitioner/complainant and the respondents/accused and taking into consideration certain objections raised by the respondents/accused, directed the Registry to convert the criminal appeal into a criminal revision petition. Accordingly, the criminal appeal has been converted into a criminal revision and renumbered as Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 576 of 2013.