Rainbow Rubber Industries and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Cen. Excise, Madurai - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....fallacious and unsustainable in law. the high court ought not to have substituted the view of trial court by its own possible view.indian penal code, 1890.sections 304-b & 498-a: dowry death acquittal of accused by trial court appeal - high court while reversing the judgment of the trial court observed that in all probabilities, i am inclined to hold that there was demand of dowry and the deceased was harassed by the first accused and therefore, she committed suicide. view of trial court on careful marshalling of entire evidence was possible and plausible view and not found per-verse held, in a case of suicide by wife allegedly on account of demand of dowry and harassment, the view taken by the trial court in acquitting accused husband and father-in-law on careful marshalling of entire evidence and documents on record, is a possible and plausible view. the decision of the trial court cannot be termed as perverse. in criminal cases the conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt. the accused cannot be convicted on the ground that in all probabilities the accused may have committed the crime. the approach of the high court is..........appellant nos. 2 and 3 herein, who are partners in the appellant no. 1 firm, are challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them under section 9 of the central excise & salt act, 1944. it was alleged that the appellants evaded central excise duty and the trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. the appellants challenged their conviction before the additional district and sessions court and the same was dismissed. the appellants filed a revision against the same before the high court and the high court dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the district & sessions judge.3. heard both sides.4. learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants are above 70 years' in age and the entire duty allegedly evaded by the present appellants has already been paid by them. under the above circumstances and in view of the special reasons, we confirm the conviction but modify the sentence and direct that the appellants 2 and 3 shall pay a sum of rs. 2 lacs each in lieu of six.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 herein, who are partners in the appellant No. 1 firm, are challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them under Section 9 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. It was alleged that the appellants evaded central excise duty and the trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Additional District and Sessions Court and the same was dismissed. The appellants filed a revision against the same before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the District & Sessions Judge.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants are above 70 years' in age and the entire duty allegedly evaded by the present appellants has already been paid by them. Under the above circumstances and in view of the special reasons, we confirm the conviction but modify the sentence and direct that the appellants 2 and 3 shall pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs each in lieu of six months imprisonment within six weeks before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and produce a receipt before the authority before whom the appellants had executed bail bonds and on production of such receipt, their bail bonds will stand cancelled.

5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.