Sree Aravind Steels Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that section 173(5) Cr.P.C., 1973, is attracted only to cases instituted on police reports. Accordingly, the same cannot be invoked based on a police report but on a private complaint under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Facts- The present Criminal Revision Case is filed, challenging the order dated 18.06.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichirappalli, in Criminal M.P.No.12824 of 2025 in C.C. No.5 of 2009, whereby the petition filed by the complainant/Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Trichirappalli, under Sections 294 r/w 173(5) Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking permission to mark the order-in-original dated 09.08.2023 as an additional document was allowed. The revision petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C. No.5 of 2009.
Conclusion- Applicability of Section 173(5) Cr.P.C., 1973, Section 173(5) Cr.P.C., 1973, is attracted only to cases instituted on police reports. The instant case is not based on a police report but on a private complaint under the Central Excise Act, 1944.The Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Customs v. L.R. Malvani, has categorically held that Sections 173(4) and 173(5) have no application to such complaints.
Held that it is the considered opinion of this court that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed a grave error in invoking Sections 173(5) and 294 Cr.P.C., 1973, to permit the marking of the 2023 adjudication order. The impugned order proceeds on the erroneous premise that the 2023 order was in existence at the time of complaint, which is demonstrably incorrect. In the absence of fresh sanction, the subsequent order cannot form part of the existing prosecution. In final, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
