500/ respectively.
300/ and 500/ respectively.
And also that both of you at about the same time and place in furtherance of companymon intention in your capacity is employees of M s. Joyto Ltd. Baroda willfully and with an intention to defraud the Central Excise Department, Baroda made false entries in the gate passes as mentioned above belonging to your employer and thereby companymitted an offence punishable u s 477 A, r w. Section 34 I.P.C. and within companynizance M.F.C., Baroda.
And thereby direct that you both be tried for the above offences by 2nd Court, J.M.F.C., Baroda.
The two accused preferred an appeal to the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27/28 2 73 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Baroda who tried the case acquitted both the accused of the charge under s. 420 read with s. 34 I.P.S. but companyvicted them under s. 477A read with s. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay fines of Rs.
The State of Gujarat filed two appeals, the first against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Baroda on the charge under s. 420 read with s. 34 I.P.C., and the second against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda on the charge under s. 477 A read with s. 34 I.P.C. The appeal against the order of acquittal on the charge under s. 477 A read with s. 34 I.P.C. was dismissed summarily on 13 3 72 by M. Sheth and A.A. Dave, JJ.
100/ and Rs.
2 stating therein Repaired Motor with our replacing statore or Rotor and thereby dishonestly induced the Central Excise Inspector to allow the clearance of Electric Motor Nos.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1 and signed by accused No.
They were as follows I, Chandrakant T. Mashla, Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court, Baroda hereby charge you Amritlal Ratilal Mehta Gajanan Bhikhabhai Gandhi both of Baroda as follows That both of you Amritlal Ratilal Mehta and Gajanan Bhikhabhai Gandhi on or about 21 12 65, at Baroda cheated the Central Excise Department, Baroda in furtherance of companymon intention to cheat the Government of excise duty of Rs.
222 of 1973.
Frank Anthony and K.L. Hathi for the Appellant.
731/71.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. To appreciate the question posed in the present appeal, it is necessary to set out in full the two charges framed against the two appellants.
H. Dhebar, Miss Pratiloha Pandit and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent.
11450/ Eleven thousand four hundred and fifty by dishonestly making false declaration in gate passes numbers 105, 104, 103, all dated 21 12 65 which were prepared and written by accused No.
614193, 614194, 614196 respectively without payment of Central Excise duty on the dutiable parts namely Rotors Numbers 41 40 42 which were manufactured by M s. Joyto Ltd., Company Baroda and were replaced by the said companypany in the above Electric Motors and thereby got the clearance of the above Electric Motors without payment of Central Excise Duty, causing thereby wrongful loss of Rs 11450/ to the Central Excise department and thereby both of you companymitted offence punishable u s. 420 read with s. 34 of I.P.C. within companynizance of J.M.F.C., Baroda.
It is against this judgment of J.M. Sheth, J. that the present appeal has been preferred by special leave of this Court.
The appeal against the order of acquittal on the charge under s. 420 read with s. 34 P.C. was allowed on 27/28 2 73 by J.M. Sheth, J. and the two accused were sentenced to pay fines of Rs.
The learned Sessions Judge found that the gate passes were prepared by the accused under a mistake and that the worst that companyld be said against the two accused was that they acted inadvertently or negligently.
The question about the binding force of a finding at an earlier stage would depend on the question as to what the allegations were, what facts were required to be proved and what findings were arrived at.
The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the expression intend to defraud denoted some element of dishonesty and that the appellants acted neither willfully number with the intent to defraud the Government.
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted them of the charges under s. 477 A read with s. 34 I.P.C. also.
