Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-1986 made in E.O.C. No. 678 of 1983 by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), Madras in acquitting the accused therein, who is the respondent herein having found him not guilty of the charges under Section 9(1)(b)(i), 9(1)(b)(ii) and Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, read with Rule 174 punishable under Section 9(1)(ii) (two counts) and under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.The charges as framed against the respondent/accused are that firstly that the respondent being the proprietor of M/s. Indian Cable Industries manufactures of electrical wires and cables falling under Tariff Item 33-B of the Central Excise Tariff, on 22-2-1982 when the Officers of the Preventive Group Madras-IV Division visited the factory premises located at No. 29, Perumal Koil Garden Lane, Madras-1 and the shop "Chordia Electricals" located at door No. 104, Audiappa Naicken Street, Madras-1, they seized the manufacturing register, delivery challan book, production and clearance registers also 635 coils of electric wires and cables under a mahazar exhibit P-7 from the factory and 33 documents and 601 coils of electric wires and cables bearing the brand name "Micro" under mahazar Exhibit P-62, as per which during the year 1980-81, the duty payable by the accused was Rs. 2, 05, 332.85 and that for the period between 1-4-1981 and 22-2-1982 the duty payable by him was Rs. 84, 624.98, since during 1980-81 he had manufactured and cleared the goods to the value of Rs. 25, 22, 362.50 and that the exemption of the total duty payable by him for the year 1980-81 was Rs. 2, 05, 332.85 and that for the period between 1-4-1981 and 22-2-1982 the duty payable by him was Rs. 84, 624.98, since during 1980-81 he had manufactured and cleared the goods to the value of Rs. 25, 22, 362.50 and that the exemption of the total duty payable by him for the year 1980-81 was Rs. 2, 05, 332.85 and by evading to pay the same has contravened Section 9(1)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 Thirdly, that during the year 1980-81 failed to take a Central Excise License for the manufacture of goods in his factory, thus contravened the provision of Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act read with 174 of the Rules of Central Excise Rules, 1944, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 9(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act; Fourthly, that during the year 1981-82 he failed to take a Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of goods in his factory thereby contravening Section 6 of the said Act and Rule 174 of the said Rules, 1944 committing an offence punishable under Section 9(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act; Fifthly, that the accused had sent Exhibits P-73 to P-173 gate passes to various electricity systems in Tamilnadu, which shows without proper payment of duties effected false debit entries making it appear as though excise duty had been paid in Exhibits P-73 to 173 and had induced various electricity systems in Tamilnadu to part with Central Excise duty and cheated the authorities of Tamilnadu Electricity Board, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 468 of the I.P.C. and Sixthly, that the accused using the forged gate passes Exhibits P-73 to P-173 as genuine by fraudulently and dishonestly making it appear to various electricity systems in Tamilnadu that Central Excise duty had been paid, when in fact he had not paid the duty thereby committing the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.The prosecution since burdened with proof of the above charges beyond reasonable doubts, in its endeavour towards proving, of the same had examined 4 witnesses viz., P.W. 1, the Inspector of Central Excise, Preventive Group, Madras; P.W. 2, the former Superintendent, Headquarters Preventive, Madras; P.W. 3, former Superintendent, Central Excise, Preventive Division, Madras; and P.W. 4, former Superintendent, Preventive Department, Madras Division-IV and would also mark 190 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-190. Apart from the above evidence the prosecution would also mark 2 material objects as M.Os 1 and 2 series, M.O. 1 being one coil electric cable 100 meters in length and M.O. 2 series being 11 rubber stamps. On the apart of the defence 6 witnesses have been examined as D-1 to 6 and 20 documents have been marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-20. The lower court in consideration of the above evidence placed by both sides and in further consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in the context of law has ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and would order the acquittal of the accused. It is only challenging the said acquittal judgment registered by the trial court, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Madras has come forward to prefer the above appeal as per its memorandum of appeal on grounds such as (i) that the learned Magistrate has misconstrued the import of the decision reported in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayar [1984 S.C.C. that the learned Magistrate had erred in its thinking (Crl.) 277 at 285]; (ii) that the Rules 4, 5 and 37(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944 are relevant and proper for action to be taken by way of criminal proceedings in court; (iii) that the learned Magistrate failed to note that the complaint filed by the Assistant Collector is perfectly in order according to the provisions of Rule 207 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944 and it is an error apparent to hold that he as not competent to lay the complaint; (iv) that having found that the accused had failed to pay the Excise duty as found in the charge for the year 1980-81 and 1981-82 he would be bound to take Excise Licence for those two years, but failed to do so. The accused had produced forged gate passes to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board and had induced the said Board to part with Central Excise duty and had cheated it making them appear to be genuine knowing the same to be forged and (v) that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the accused are unsound and unsustainable. 4.Mr. P.N. Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Department on behalf of Mr. P. Rajamanickkam, would contend that once an annual production exceeds Rs. 4.Mr. P.N. Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Department on behalf of Mr. P. Rajamanickkam, would contend that once an annual production exceeds Rs. 4 lakhs one has to register with the Central Excise Department and if it exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs duty has to be paid that the items manufactured by the accused were cables, wires and electrical items; that the Officers P.W. 1 accompanied by the other inspectors of the Central Excise inspected the factory in charge of the accused on 22-2-1982 found violations in wholesale that the account books, ledgers, gate passes and the quantity manufactured that went out of the factory have been detected. The learned Counsel would draw the attention of the court to the points for determination numbering 5 found in para No. 20 of the trial court judgment, they are as follows : Whether the accused concern was liable to pay excise duty "1. of Rs. 2, 05, 332.85 for 1980-81 and Rs. 84, 624.98 for 1981 and evaded payment and thus contravened Section 9(1)(b) punishable under Section 9(1)(b)(ii) respectively ? Whether the accused concern was bound take excise licence 2. for 1980-81 and 1981-82 and failed to take the same and contravened Section 6 read with Rule 174 punishable under Section 9(1)(a)(ii) (two counts) of the Act ? Whether the accused concern produced forged gate passes to 3. T.N.E.B. and induced T.N.E.B. to part with central excise duty and thus cheated T.N.E.B. and thus contravened Section 468 I.P.C. ? Whether the accused used as genuine forged gate passes 4. knowing them to be forged and thus contravened Section 471 of I.P.C. ? and Whether the complaint submitted by the Assistant Collector 5. of Central Excise competent ?" 5.The learned Counsel would further argue that the accused had given forged gate passes and have supplied bogus gate passes to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board to make it appear that the taxes had already been paid but the gate passes index would show the quantum and hence Exhibits P-73 to P-173 gate passes recovery are important pieces of evidence. The learned Counsel would point out that the court below has held points 1 to 4 against the accused admitting the contravention by the accused, but holding point No. 5 against the prosecution stating thereby that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was not competent to prosecute the offence has ordered acquittal of the accused. The learned Counsel would point out that the court below has held points 1 to 4 against the accused admitting the contravention by the accused, but holding point No. 5 against the prosecution stating thereby that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was not competent to prosecute the offence has ordered acquittal of the accused. He would urge that if the statute prescribes that a particular person could only file the complaint, that person could be taken as the competent person to register the complaint but under Central Excises and Salt Act no specific person having been named and the Act no where stating as to who should file the complaint, Generally it should be taken that any public servant like the Assistant Collector in this case, is competent to file the complaint. The learned Counsel would quote Rule 207 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which says : Charge by whom to be preferred :- As charge of an offence under Section 9 of the Act shall not be except by an officer not inferior in rank to an Inspector "and would emphasise that the Assistant Collector being an officer not less in rank than the Inspector is quite competent to register the complaint. But on perusal of the next Rule 208 it would contemplate that" every officer of customs duty empowered by the Collector will only have the jurisdiction and exercise all such acts as search, examination, seizure, detention, removal etc., "Whereas there is nothing to show here that having been authorised by the Collector the Assistant Collector, Excise has filed the complaint herein. 6.In reply, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Habibullah Basha appearing on behalf of the respondent would advance his arguments stating that when the adjudication is done by a Collector, the sanction for prosecution is necessary, pointed out Section 2(a) of the Central Excise Act, wherein it is stated that "Adjudicating Authority" means any authority competent to pass an order or decision under this Act. It does not ignore the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) or Appellate Tribunals. The learned Counsel would draw the attention of the court to Section 9B of the Act and would further point out that even this section does not say anything about as to who has to prosecute. The learned Counsel would draw the attention of the court to Section 9B of the Act and would further point out that even this section does not say anything about as to who has to prosecute. The further argument of the learned Counsel is that Section 13 empowering the Officers to cause the arrest also does not particularly say as to who is empowered nor Section 18 which deals with searches and arrest nor even Section 26 dealing with power of stoppage, search and arrest etc., nor Section 33 which gives power of adjudication regarding confiscation levying penalty under Section 33(b) for confiscation of goods not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs in value and exempt of penalty not exceeding Rs. 250/- and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is competent to adjudge. Further coming to the proviso that the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted by law, the limit enacted under Section 33(B) could be reduced and the powers may be conferred on any officer indicated in Clause (a) or (b) of this section. The learned senior Counsel would ultimately emphasise that all the sections seen above emphasised the person who is empowered and when the Act is silent, the Rules cannot say something. Under Section 2B all the Central Board appoints the officers with certain appointment to carry on with and that the sanction is absolutely necessary in such event, citing a judgment reported in M/s. Ranadey Micronutrients etc. v. Collector of Central Excise, wherein the learned Counsel would point out that under Section 37B the issuance by the Board orders, instructions and directions to Central Excise Officers, such orders, instructions and directions are to be issued when the Board considers it necessary or expedient to do so to achieve uniformity in classification of excisable goods and the levy of excise duty thereon. Central Excise Officers are obliged to observe and follow these orders, instructions and directions and further would point out that circulars have been issued by the Board in the said case in consultation with the Chief and Deputy Chief Chemist and in the latter case, the Ministry of Agriculture. Citing yet another decision reported in Poulose and Mathen v. Collector of Central Excise, the learned Counsel would lay emphasis in the contents of Para 15 of its judgment, wherein it is stated that :" One aspect deserves to be noticed in this context. Citing yet another decision reported in Poulose and Mathen v. Collector of Central Excise, the learned Counsel would lay emphasis in the contents of Para 15 of its judgment, wherein it is stated that :" One aspect deserves to be noticed in this context. The earlier Tariff Advice No. 83/81 on the basis of which Trade Notice No. 220/81 was issued by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs is binding on the department. It should be given effect to. There is no material on record to show that this has been resinded or departed from, and even so, to what extent ? Even assuming that the latter Tariff Advice No. 6/85 has taken a different view about which there is no positive material - the facts point out that the concerned department itself was having considerable doubts about the matter. The position was not free from doubt. It was far from clear. In such a case where two opinions are possible, the assessee should be given the benefit of doubt and that opinion which is in its favour should be given effect to. In the light of the above, it is unnecessary to adjudicate the other points involved in the appeal on the merits. "The other judgment cited by the learned senior Counsel is one reported in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Kores (India) Limited 1997 (89) ELT 41 (S.C.)] wherein it is held that -" A tariff advice or a trade notice issued by the Board certainly does not bind the Tribunal or the Courts and an assessee may argue that it is erroneous; but it is not open to the Revenue to advance arguments that are contrary to the terms thereof. Upon this short ground alone, the appeals must be dismissed. "Ultimately, the learned senior Counsel would quote from the Central Excise Guidelines certain passages which are provising with certain guidelines for launching prosecution. Accordingly, the guidelines 2(i) reads," Prosecution should be launched with the approval of the Collector even though at present there is no statutory provision for this. The Collector should apply his mind to the case in the light of these guidelines and take the decision about launching the prosecution or otherwise"Guideline 3 reads, " The above guidelines cannot cover all the situations. The Collector should apply his mind to the case in the light of these guidelines and take the decision about launching the prosecution or otherwise"Guideline 3 reads, " The above guidelines cannot cover all the situations. The Collectors will hence .....have to take a decision in a case in the light of the Government's general policy indicated above. In case, where a departure is made from the above general guidelines for sanctioning prosecution or otherwise, reasons for his decision should be recorded by the Collector in the relevant file." Guideline 40 reads : " Under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 an offender is liable to be prosecuted and penalised by the Court of law. Detailed guidelines for launching prosecutions have been issued vide Boards F.No. 208/6-M/77-CX. 6, dated 26th July, 1980. But it has been observed that there is considerable time lag between the date on which in offence case if adjudicated and the date on which the prosecution is sanctioned and the complaint filed in the court of law. To overcome this time lag, the issue has been examined in consultation with the Director General of Revenue Intelligence and it has been decided that where the adjudicating authority is Collector or the Additional Collector, he would pass an order sanctioning prosecution against those accused against whom there is evidence to initiate criminal proceedings. In cases where the adjudicating authority is Deputy Collector/Assistant Collector, the adjudication authority should send a proposal within a fortnight after adjudication to the Collector ". 7.The learned senior Counsel would further argue that it is not open for the Revenue to advance arguments and that Rule 4 cannot override the statute, that no new Rule 11A if excise duty is evaded prosecution should be launched within a period of six months and the proviso produces that without the Board's sanction it is only the Collector, who could prosecute and relating to other officers they cannot file a prosecution and would clarify, that the filing of the complaint and taking of the decisions are different. He would further point out point No. 5 of the judgment of the trial court is the grey area and without sanction no court shall take cognizance. He would further point out point No. 5 of the judgment of the trial court is the grey area and without sanction no court shall take cognizance. 8.The learned Counsel for the appellant would argue that according to Section 12, the Central Excise Officers are not Police Officers and when they go for inspection or register the case gain powers to search, seize etc. but the investigation is one. Further pointing out that it is not even the notification but the guidelines to the Central Government and on a reading of the guidelines would depict the policy of the Government. The court has taken cognizance of it and it is competent to punish there is absolutely no bar in the statute and the court is competent in taking cognizance of the case conducting trial and deciding the case. But contra everything to the above arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned senior Counsel for the respondent would say that the term `Collector' is there in the old Act and it is not there in the new Act. 9.On a careful study of the above arguments advanced by the respective Counsel for the appellant and the respondent and upon perusing the judgment and the facts and circumstances of the case as revealed in evidence, it comes to be known that the trial court had widely discussed and has arrived at the conclusion. That out of 5 points framed for determination of the case in hand the court below has concluded the first 4 points in favour of the prosecution, but deciding the last point" whether the complaint by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is competent? "deciding that point in the negative has ordered the acquittal of the accused. That out of 5 points framed for determination of the case in hand the court below has concluded the first 4 points in favour of the prosecution, but deciding the last point" whether the complaint by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is competent? "deciding that point in the negative has ordered the acquittal of the accused. So far as this point is concerned, the lower court in consideration of Section 191A of Criminal Procedure Code under which the private complaint had been filed by the public servant viz., Assistant Collector, Central Excise and further in consideration of the reliance placed on the reported judgment in 1984 SCC 277 at 285 (supra) would say that when the statute itself prescribes the person competent to file the complaint, only such persons can file the complaint and would give credence to the contentions of the Counsel for the respondent that the complaint filed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise is not competent to as the complainant has not been examined and without evidence that the Collector has delegated the powers to file the complaint under the Central Excise Act, when such facilities are available for officers not less than the rank of Inspectors under the Customs Act. Further pointing out that no delegation of authority under Section 36(a) of the Act has been made to the Assistant Collector by the competent person has been filed and rules 4 and 5 also empowered only delegation by Collector of Central Excise but even such powers have not been conferred on the Assistant Collector Central Excise, who is the complainant, he is not competent to file the complaint. Since the complaint is silent as to the authority under which this complaint has been filed by the Assistant Collector, the evidence is also silent on this aspect. The Assistant Collector, who filed this complaint has also not been examined in the trial court and hence the trial court deciding that the complaint had not been laid by the competent person prescribed by law it had caused serious legal impediment to maintain the complaint, thus ultimately deciding the point No. 5 in favour of the accused further remarking that the guilt of the accused has not been brought home for charges framed against him and thus ultimately ordering his acquittal. 10.Since no strong reasons have been brought forth contra to the decision arrived at by the court below so far as the competence of the Assistant Collector, Customs to file the complaint and to maintain the same before the trial court, on the part of the appellant, there become no necessary to have a change of opinion on that point. At this juncture it is relevant to point out that the decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in S. Madhavan Nair v. State of Kerala [1975 M.L.J. (Cri.) 239 at 243]. It has been held in the above case that -" In an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon facts the High Court should give proper weight and the view of the trial Judge as to the consideration to such matters as (1) the presumption of innocence in favour of the credibility of the witnesses; (2) accused a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been the right of the accused to the benefit of any real acquitted at his trial (3) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a and reasonable doubt; and (4) finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnessees. The High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgment which lead it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. Further if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Further if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It would follow as a corollary from that, that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occasion for the reversal of that view would not arise." 11.If the above norms fixed by the Apex Court are to be observed by this appellate court in the circumstances of the case in hand, there is absolutely no necessity warranting interference by this court into the acquittal judgment registered by the trial court. This court does not see any patent error of law or perversity in approach so far as the appreciation of evidence and the legal questions that have arisen in the case are concerned. Hence the interference by this court unto the well merited and well considered judgment rendered by the trial court is unnecessary and unwarranted and at no point such interference is called for. 12.In result, the appeal shall stand dismissed, confirming the acquittal judgment rendered by the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras in E.C.C. No. 678 of 1983, dated 16-3-1986.