JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 2.3.93 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Special Court (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 2/93 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 9(l)(b), l(bb), 9(l)(c), 9(l)(d) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 2. On the basis of the inspection made on 2.1.91 by the officers of Central Excise and Customs Department of the Government of India, a complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was filed against the petitioner by the Superintendent, prosecution of the Central Excise and Customs Department, Jaipur to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Section 9(l)(b), 9(l)(bb), 9(l)(bbb), 9(l)(c), 9(l)(d) punishable under Section 9(l)(c). This complaint based on the inspection dated 2.1.93 that is after a period of 2 years for which there is no explanation. The learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offences under Section (l)(b), 9(l)(bb), 9(l)(c), 9(l)(d) read with 9(l)(i) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 for violation of the certain provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. It is against this order dated 2.3.93 by which the cognizance was taken against the petitioner, that present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 3. On behalf of the petitioner the first submission is that the petitioner is a 100% export unit and vide notification No. 127/91 dated 20.5.1984 such units are fully exempted from paying any central excise duty and the petitioner-firm being a 100% export unit considering it to be fully exempted from paying central excise duty did not obtain the central excise license and the entire production of the processed fabrics are fully consumed in the manufacture of readymade garments by the petitioners firm. 4. 4. The Officers of the Central Excise and Customs Department had never called upon and had sent no notice of demand with regard to the depositing the excise duty and when the premises of the petitioner were searched on 2.1.91 and it was pointed out to him that he was required to pay the excise duty to the tune of a sum of Rs.7,40,883.07/-, the petitioner did not take any time and immediately after the recording of his statement on 12.1.91, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.7,40,883.07/- on 21.1.91 notwithstanding the question as to whether he was under any such legal obligation or not. The submission of Shri Bajwa therefore, is that there was no question of any intention to evade the duty rather, the basic fact of the evasion of the duty itself is wanting in this case and, therefore, whatever may be the legal position with regard to the liability to pay the excise duty, there is no criminal liability against the petitioner and there was no basis to prosecute the petitioner and, therefore, the cognizance which has been taken by the Magistrate is wholly unwarranted and such cognizance and subjecting the petitioner to the trial on the basis of such cognizance will be an abuse of the process of the Court. Shri Bajwa has also submitted that the petitioners firm lakes up the various steps of bleaching, dyeing, printing and calendering in the course of the manufacture of readymade garments. This process involve bleaching, dyeing, printing and calendering as an integral part of the activities taken to manufacture readymade garments and process in manufacture or in relation to manufacture involves not only the production but various stages of raw material subjected to change by different operations. 5. Without any notice of demand the excise duly had been promptly paid and, therefore, no accusation can be levelled with regard to the wilful evasion of the duty and there is no breach of the provisions of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 6. It was also submitted that the impugned-order dated 2.3.93 passed by the learned Magistrate has been passed without application of the judicial mind and, therefore, also this order cant be sustained. 7. 6. It was also submitted that the impugned-order dated 2.3.93 passed by the learned Magistrate has been passed without application of the judicial mind and, therefore, also this order cant be sustained. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in my opinion in these proceedings under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code it is not possible to decide the controversy with regard to the liability to pay the excise duty but the fact cant be lost sight of that soon after the Officers of the Central Excise and Customs Department took the search of the petitioners premises on 2.1.91 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 13.1.91, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.7,40,883.07/-. The receipt to evidence this fact has also been filed by Shri Bajwa. It appears that the petitioner was not interested to evade the duty and it was not a case of wilful evasion. The petitioner may have remained under the impression that there was no liability to pay the excise duty. Shri Bajwa has also cited before me 1991 (55) ELT, p. 444(SC). In this judgment the Supreme Court has observed as under : "There may be several stages of processing, a different kind of processing at each stage. With each process suffered the original commodity experience a change. Whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. But it is only when the change or a series of changes take the commodity to the point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take place. Manufacture thus involves series of processes. Process in manufacture or in relation to manufacture implies not only the production but the various stages through which the raw material is subjected to change by different operations. It is the cumulative effect of the various processes to which the raw material is subjected to, manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would be a process in relation to the manufacture. It is the cumulative effect of the various processes to which the raw material is subjected to, manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would be a process in relation to the manufacture. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process of manufacture or processing of goods would be impossible or commercially inexpedient, that process is one in relation to the manufacture. There is no warrant for limiting the meaning of the expression in the manufacture of goods to the process of production of goods only. The expression in the manufacture of goods takes within its encompass all processes which are directly related to the actual production. Thus "processing" may be an intermediate stage in manufacture and until some change has taken place and the commodity retains a continuing substantial identity through the processing stage, we cannot say that is has been manufactured. That does not, however, mean that any operation in the course of such process is not in relation to the manufacture." 8. Thus, the submission that it is an integral process is supported by the authority of the Supreme Court. Shri Bajwa has also submitted that the petitioners admission or confession as has been mentioned in para 8 of the petition is wholly wrong and erroneous although, the petitioner had said in his statement under Section 14 that lie was under the impression that he was not liable to pay any excise duly being a 100% export unit. On the fact of this case, it appears that notwithstanding the question of liability to pay the excise duty, one thing is very certain that even without a formal demand of notice with regard to the excise duty, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.7,40,883.07/- moment he came to know from the officers of the Central Excise and Customs Department in the month of January, 1991 that according to them the excise duty was payable. In such circumstances it will be unjust to allow the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Section 9(l)(b), 9(l)(bb), 9(l)(c), (l)(d) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 to continue. In such circumstances it will be unjust to allow the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Section 9(l)(b), 9(l)(bb), 9(l)(c), (l)(d) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 to continue. The impugned-order dated 2.3.93 also shows that the Judicial Magistrate did not make the active application of mind on the objective facts of the case and it appears that the factum with regard to the deposition of the entire excise duty on 21.1.93 was not brought to his notice else there should have been a reference thereto in the impugned-order itself or the cognizance may not have been taken. 9. In my considered opinion allowing of the prosecution in this case will therefore, be an exercise in futility and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the proceedings cant be allowed to be continued against the petitioner, the order dated 2.3.93 with regard to taking of the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section (l)(b), (l)(bb), (l)(c), (l)(d) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set-aside. The entire proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Special Court (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 2193 are hereby quashed. 10. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is allowed as indicated above. The record of the court below may be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******