In Criminal Appeal No.
The companyplaint was received in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 18 May, 1965.
the licencee of Meenachi Match Works and accused No.
194 of 1969 the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 30 November, 1965 acquitted the accused of the charges and held that the bar of limitation under the section applied to the prosecution by the State.
The companyplaint was filed against accused No.
The State preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madras.
who was the licencee of Paulraj Match Works, Nallichatram and accused No.
In Criminal Appeal No.
In Criminal Appeal No.
2 who was the accountant in the factory and who had assisted accused No.
1 in the manufacture of matches and maintenance of accounts and records of the factory.
The companyplaint against the accused who are respondents in this appeal was that on 25 July, 1964 the accused being proprietor and accountant respectively of Paulraj Match Works at Nallichatram were found to have affixed cut banderols and torn banderols to the matches manufactured in the said Match Factory with a view to evade the payment of excise duty payable to the Government and that the accused also attempted to deprive the Central Gov ernment of Rs.
rite respondents preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court at Ramanathapuram.
The Sessions Judge on 16 November, 1965 set aside the companyviction and sentence and acquitted the respondents.
1944 and also under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 511 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
2437.50 being the Excise duty calculated at the standard rate.
195 of 1969 the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 6 July, 1965 found the respondents guilty.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 21, 1968 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
The inspection of factory by the Central Excise staff was on 25 July, 1964.
577.42 by their acts.
211 and 232 of 1966 and Criminal E.C. No.
The further details of the companyplaint were that the register R.G.I. was number written out from 2 July, 1964 and R.G. 3 register was number companyrectly maintained.
The companyplaint against the accused was for violation of Rules 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under section 9 b and d of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused were alleged to have companymitted violation of Rules 9, 53, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under section 9 b and d of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
The High Court held that the prosecution must fail as it was barred by limitation.
There was also a shortage of 50 leaves of banderols in stock.
The further allegations in the companyplaint were that on inspection of lorry despatches and clearances of the factory, it was found that during 1963 64 and 1964 .65 upto 20 June, 1964 the licence had actually cleared without entry in the official Central Excise Records and without payment of duty a quantity of matches in excess of the quantity shown in the records.
The companyplaint against the accused was that on 20 June, 1964 the Central Excise staff visited the factory and found that the factory was working at night.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
The State preferred an appeal to the High Court.
The companyplaint was that tile accused had attempted to deprive the Central Government of Rs.
The present appeal is from the judgment of the High Court.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate therefore held that companyputing the period of six months from the date, the last date within which the companyplaint should have been laid would be 25 January, 1965.
194 of 1969 the companyplaint was filed on 18 May, 1965.
194 and 195 of 1969.
S. Narasimhan, for the respondents.
On inspection it was found that cut banderols instead of full banderols had been pasted on certain quantities of match boxes with a view to evade payment of excise duty in violation of rules 64, 68 and 70 of the Central Excise Rules.
195 of 1969 the companyplaint was against accused No.
195 of 1969 the acts companyplained of occurred on 20 June, 1964 and the companyplaint was filed on 15 January, 1965.
Gobind Das and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
194 of 1969 occurred on 25 July, 1964 and the companyplaint was filed on 18 May, 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered Ray, J. These two appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 21 November, 1968 of the High Court at Madras dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 30 November, 1965 and the order of the Sessions Judge dated 16 November, 1965 acquitting the respondents.
The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted for violation of rules 9, 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under section 9 b and d of the Act and also under section.
2 husband of accused No 1 who was running the factory and maintaining accounts.
1643 of 1966.
