Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-15-1983
Reported in : 1983(13)ELT926(Mad)
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Crl. P.C. to direct the return of the items valued to the tune of more than Rs. 3 lakhs, seized and removed from the godowns of Messrs Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd., 25B, Sipcot Industrial Estate, Ranipet. The petition by the Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd. represented by their Manager, R. Krishnaswamy, arises under the following circumstances : The Synthetic Detergent Division at Ranipet manufacture organic surface active agent, classified as OSAA - Item 15AA in the schedule for purposes of levying and collecting duties of excise on the excisable goods under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner is the Manager (Accounts) in charge of the administration of the factory. According to him, all registers, accounts, etc. as required by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are properly maintained and monthly returns and return on materials used and of goods manufactured in the factory are periodically submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-30-1983
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1880
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J. in Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy J., in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Ellore Division Vellore, V. R. Padmanabhan (Judgment of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 808 of 1976, dated 20-12-1979), Reported in 1980 ELT 631 (Mad) on the question whether the officer of the Customs Department would be an agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Cr.P.C., and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such an officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable. 2. Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated. C.A. 688 of 1976 :- 3. This appeal raises out of the judgment made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-30-1983
Reported in : 1986(23)ELT363(Mad)
1. All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 688 to 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy, J., inAssistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore Division, Vellore v. R. Padmanabhan (judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 1976 dated 20th December, 1979), on the question whether the officer of the customs department would be an agency empowered to made investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such as officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable.2. Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated.3. Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1976. - This appeal arises out of the judgment made in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-08-1983
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1761
ORDER1. The counter-petitioners in M.C. No. 59 of 1981 on the file of the Executive First class Magistrate-cum-Sub-Collector, Sankari, have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against them, in the abovesaid case. 2. In respect of two hands bearing survey No. 115/2 of an extend of 2.24 acres and 116 of an extent of 2.52 acres in Seetharamapalayam village in Tiruchengode Taluk there were disputes between the first petitioner and his group of people, on the one hand, and one Rengasami Naidu and his group of people, on the other. The first petitioner, who was appointed as the sole non-hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Vinayagar temple of Sengodampalayam and Arulmigu Mariamman temple of Kailasampalayam in Tiruchengode Taluk claimed that the lands in the two survey fields belong to the temple. Rengasami Naidu and some others, who are Poojaris of the temple have been contending that the lands were their patta lands and that they are entitled to parcel out the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-09-1983
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ85
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. In C.M.P. No. 2618 of 1983, petitioner prays for condonation of the delay of 128 days in the filing of the revision petition against an order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under Tamil Act XVIII of 1960.2. C.M.P. No. 2619 of 1983 is for grant of stay of the proceedings in E.P. No. 144 of 1983 and any other proceedings in H.R.C. No. 3251 of 1974 pending disposal of petition filed in C.M.P. No. 2618 of 1983.3. Petitioner would state that he could not prefer the revision petition within the time-limit as prescribed under Section 25 (2) of Act XVIII of 1960, due to illness for four months.4. Respondent herein submits that in view of the special period provided under Section 25 (2) and as Section 5 of Limitation Act, will have no application and the affidavit filed in support of the petition being devoid of any particulars about illness and no proof having been adduced about the truth of the claim that petitioner was ill for four months, this petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-14-1983
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas320(Mad)
S. Natarajan, J. 1. Both these petitions are connected and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. The former petition has been filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 10, 12 and 14 and the latter petition has been filed by accused No. 13 in C.C. No. 7571 of 1979 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. The two petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in the criminal case mentioned above. The Assistant Registrar of Companies, Madras, who is the complainant in the case, has filed the complaint against the petitioners and two other accused, viz., one T.R. Dharaneedharan (accused No. 4) and S.T. Adityan (accused No. 11), alleging commission of offences under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 58A(3)(a) and section 58A(5) of the COmpanies Act, 1956. The complaint proceeds as follows: The first accused is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-23-1983
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1748
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision is preferred by accused 1 to 4 in Crime No. 49/81 of Ponneri Police Station, registered under Sections 448, 341 and 323, I.P.C. challenging the legality of the order passed by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri, before whom the abovesaid case is pending, rejecting the prayer of the accused in Crl. M. P. No. 1216/82 seeking the stoppage of further proceedings in the matter on the ground that the investigation in that case, which is a summons case, had not been concluded within a period of six months from the date of their arrest, as contemplated under Section 167 (5), Cr. P. C and seeking an order striking off the charge-sheet and discharging the accused.2. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application on the following grounds, viz., (1) that the perusal of the charge-sheet discloses that the occurrence took place on 2-3-1981 and that the investigating officer had completed his investigation by 6-5-1981, (2) that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-26-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Mad142
1. The facts leading to the Writ Petition, shortly, are as under: R. S. No. 272/10-B and R. S. No. 303/5-B Chinnaparur village, Vridhachalam taluk, South Arcot District, is a joint family property belonging to the petitioner and the other members of his family. A proposal was WOOW out to form a path-way to the burial ground for the use of the Harijans of the locality. 7berefom, acquisition proceedings were started for this avowedly public purpose, under - the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. The petitioner, along with others, submitted objections stating that there was no need for forming a separate path-way to the burial ground for use by the Harijans; there was a regular road leading to the burial ground which Could be utilised by the Harijans also, and for the formation of pathway there was no need to acquire lands by disturbing the owners of cultivable lands.2. However, what happened was, in W. P. No. 797 of 1978, this court struck down Act 31 of 1978 as vires and offen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-09-1983
Reported in : 1984(15)ELT289(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above five writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed challenging the legality and validity of the orders of detention in the respective cases, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). 2. One of the main grounds raised in all these writ petitions on the strength of an observation made by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Balasubrahmanyan, J. and M. N. Moorthy, J. in Kaiser Otmar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 MLW 158 : 1981 Cri LJ 208 is that the detenu should be deemed to have been arrested from the moment they were taken into custody by the Customs officials, even if it be under the guise of any enquiry or interrogation, and that their subsequent custody with the Customs Department without being produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours as envisaged in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of...
Tag this Judgment!