Sriprakash Aggarwal vs C.B. Singh, SR. Intelligence Officer of Dgcei

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of issuance of process to the petitioner and discharging the petitioner who is facing charges before the learned trial court under Excise Act. The main ground urged by the petitioner before this Court is that Mr. C.B. Singh who filed complaint against accused had failed to show that he was authorized to file the complaint and had requisite powers under the Act. The petitioner has relied upon an answer furnished to him under RTI Act, wherein, it is stated that no gazette notification was issued in respect of Mr. C.B. Singh, Superintendent of Commissioner working as SIO in the office of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), New Delhi on deputation. This RTI query was made at Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, whereas the case against the petitioner was running in Delhi. On the other hand, respondent has placed on record a Notification No. 38/2001 -Central Excise (N.T.) dated 26th June, 2001. This notification was issued under the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w sub-rule (1) of Rule (3) of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 and in exercise of other powers. The notification provides that a Senior Intelligence Officer and Superintendent shall be treated equal for the purpose of exercising all powers under the Act. It is not disputed that the Superintendent of DGCEI under Notification No. 9/99 dated 10th February, 1999 has been given powers to summon the person and to given evidence and to produce the documents with enquiries u/s 14. Once, it is notified that a Senior Intelligence Officer was equivalent to Superintendent, the powers exercised by Superintendent can be exercised by the Senior Intelligence Officer. I, therefore, consider that the challenge to the competency of complainant made by the petitioner prima facie must fail. Apart from this, it would be appropriate to observe that the petitioner from the very beginning had been evading his appearance before the Investigating Officer as despite repeated summons to him by the Investigating Officer and despite directions given by the court, he had not been co-operated in investigation nor appeared and was taking excuse of his illness. The ailments mentioned by the doctor in the medical certificate are all general in nature and the petitioner also did not come before the Court with clean hands. Looking into the conduct to the petitioner, I consider that the petitioner does not deserve any relief. Petition is dismissed along with all pending applications.