AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 158 wordsK.M. Natarajan, J.—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 u/s 377(2) Criminal Procedure Code.
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 u/s 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
u/s 377(2), Crl.P. C. Hence dismissed.