JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of acquittal of Madhumal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 2. A complaint against the respondent Madhumal was filed by the Excise Inspector, in respect of an offence under section 16 read with section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. An objection was taken before the learned Magistrate that the Excise Inspector was not an Excise Officer and was not competent to file a complaint under section 67 of the Excise Act. There was a conflict of opinion in this Court earlier on this question and the learned Magistrate, following the decision of a learned Single Judge in Bhagwana v. State, 1979 Criminal Law Reporter (Rajasthan) 589 , held that the complaint was incompetent as it was filed by the Excise Inspector and that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence complained of on the basis of such a complaint. It was on this ground alone that the accused Madhumal was acquitted by the learned Magistrate by her order dated July 10, 1980. 3. After the learned Magistrate passed his order, the conflict of judicial opinion was resolved and a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Laxman Singh, 1980 WLN 433 held that an Excise Inspector was an Excise Officer for the purposes of filing a complaint or a report under section 67 (1) (a) of the Excise Act. It was observed in that case that no specific authority was needed for presentation of a complaint or a report under section 67(1)(a) of the Act and that the powers of an Excise Officer had been invested on the Excise Inspector, who would be deemed to be an Excise Officer of the purposes of section 67(1)(a) of the Act In view of the decision of the Division Bench in Laxman singh's case (2), the complaint filed by the Excise Officer in the present case was competent and the learned Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence on the basis of such a complaint. Mr. N.P. Gupta appearing for the respondent Madhumal has nothing further to submit on this question, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Laxmansinghs case (2). 4. Mr. N.P. Gupta appearing for the respondent Madhumal has nothing further to submit on this question, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Laxmansinghs case (2). 4. As the Excise Inspector could validly file a complaint under section 67(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the complaint filed in the present case cannot be held to be incompetent on the ground that it was not presented by a proper person and the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence on the basis of such a complaint. 5. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting accused Madhumal, dated July 10, 1980 is set aside. The case is sent back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for trial in accordance with law. Madhumal accused is present in the court and he is directed to appear before the leaned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhilwara on May 25, 1981. The record of the case should be sent back to that court immediately.appeal Allowed. *******