Skip to content


Assistant Collector of Central Excise and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal Nos. 463/77 and 837/79
Judge
Reported in1986(24)ELT28(Mad)
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 377(2)
AppellantAssistant Collector of Central Excise and anr.
RespondentAbdul Wahab and anr.
Appellant AdvocateP. Rajamanickam, Public Prosecutor for Customs
Respondent AdvocateP. Rajaraman and ;Abdul Ghani, Advs.
Cases ReferredAssistant Collector of Central Excise (Preventive) Madras v. V. Krishnamurthy
Excerpt:
- 1. both the appeals have been filed by the assistant collector of central excise, vellore and assistant collector of customs, madras-1 for enhancement of sentence under section 377(2) criminal procedure code. 2. the main question involved in both the appeals is about the maintainability of the appeals. my attention was drawn to the decision of a bench of this court in assistant collector of central excise (preventive) madras v. v. krishnamurthy (1) wherein natarajan, j. and ratnavel pandian, j. have held that an appeal preferred by the assistant collector of central excise under section 377(2). crl.p.c. through his counsel, on the ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded, is not competent, and is liable to be dismissed for that reason. in view of the bench judgment, these two appeals have.....
Judgment:

1. Both the appeals have been filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore and Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras-1 for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The main question involved in both the appeals is about the maintainability of the appeals. My attention was drawn to the decision of a Bench of this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Preventive) Madras v. V. Krishnamurthy (1) wherein Natarajan, J. and Ratnavel Pandian, J. have held that an appeal preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Section 377(2). Crl.P.C. through his counsel, on the ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded, is not competent, and is liable to be dismissed for that reason. In view of the Bench judgment, these two appeals have to be dismissed on the ground that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is not competent to file the appeals for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2), Crl.P. C. Hence dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //