Allowed

Al Hadly v. Union of India

Kerala HC3 Nov 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/1448/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal revision petition holding that criminal liability cannot attach when the accused was exonerated by the Appellate Authority. The trial court erred in framing charges despite the binding civil discharge order, leading to the set-aside of the charge and allowance of the discharge petition.

What did the court decide?

The discharge petition was allowed and the charge framed against the accused stood set aside.

Al Hadly Vs Union of India — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1448 OF 2010

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 40/2005 DATED 02-01-2010 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶8

AL HADLY. PROPRIETOR M/S.POWER,23/1836,I,2ND FLOOR,SAFAR BUILDING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,SOUTH KALAMASSERY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ERNAKULAM II DIVISION,CENTRAL EXCISE, BHAVAN,KATHRIKADVU,KALOOR,KOCHI-17.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SHRI.JAMES KURIAN CGC R1 BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM AJITHKUMAR PP FOR CUSTOMS COCHIN R1 BY ADV.SRI. IBRAHIM KHAN TP R2.SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1448 OF 2010

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Pertaining to the amount payable by way of

¶19

central excise duty based on a raid conducted, the accused No.3 was exonerated from the

¶20

liability by the Appellate Authority under Annexure A1 order, dated 01.06.2005. The discharge petition submitted by accused No.3

¶21

against the criminal liability was dismissed by the trial court, hence came up in revision.

¶22

The charge was framed for the offence under Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 9(1)(bbb) and 9(1)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. When accused No.3 exonerated from the liability to pay the disputed central excise duty, no criminal liability can be fastened based on its non payment. Annexure A1 order is binding on both the parties. Hence the jurisdiction vested with the trial court not exercised in its correct

¶23

perspective, but a charge was framed against the accused No.3 by dismissing the discharge

¶24

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1448 OF 2010

¶25

petition. The same is liable to be set aside. I do so. The discharge petition is allowed. The charge framed against accused No.3 will stand set aside.

¶26

Crl.R.P. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

Al Hadly v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Al Hadly v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizam Vs State of Kerala

Mahroofmanalody Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Saidalavi Vs Hamsa Haji

K.Nijas Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Dlf Projects Limited Vs Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, Ernakulam