UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM NARAYAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India represented by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Burdwan Division, has come up in appeal under S. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved with the order of acquittal dated 2-6-80 recorded by Judicial Magistrates, Durgapur, in C.R. Case No. 46 of 1978. The case arose out of a petition of complaint and on he date the impugned order was passed the complainant and his witnesses did not appear before the Court and the learned Magistrate passed he following order:

(2.) The order of acquittal quoted above leaves no room for doubt that the learned Magistrate treated the case as a summons case. In appeal, therefore, a very interesting question has been raised if the case under consideration of the learned Magistrates was a summons case as he purported to treats it on behalf of the appellant it is argued that the compliant disclosed a arrant case and accordingly the learned Magistrate should have treated the case as a warrant case and should have applied the procedure laid down in Chapter XIX of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) After proper appreciation of the contentions raised by learned Advocates it would be sufficient to observe that the complaint disclosed an offence under S. 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 1944. Section 9(1)(ii) lays down that whoever commits any offence under the above clause shall be punishable "with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both". It is common knowledge that the measure of punishment prescribed for an offence will determine the nature of the case i.e., whether it will be treaded as a warrant case or a summons case. In this connation we may refer to S. 2(x) of the Cr. P. C. 1973 delimiting a warrant case the definition's as follows: