JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is preferred against the order dated 2-12-1987 by which, the Additional CJM, Dausa ordered to frame charge against the petitioner under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. An information was received on 31-10-1986 at Police Station, Dausa that in car No. RST 1326 some liquor is being transported. That car was checked at Octroi-post Agra Road, Dausa and search was made by the SI Mohammed Irshad. In the dicky of the car 5 cartoons containing 60 bottles in all were found. After taking sample from the bottles and completing the usual investigation the Police submitted challan against the petitioner under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the learned CJM, framed charge which has been challenged here. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that it is disputed that the petitioner was carrying 60 bottle of foreign liquor in 5 cartons in the car when he was checked at the out-post by the Sub-Inspector and according to him sample from three bottles was taken by the SI. No sample was taken from other bottles which he was carrying. The samples taken by the Sub-Inspector were sent for Chemical examination and the samples were found to be of liquor. Therefore, the argument is that the petitioner was found in possession of three bottles of liquor from which the sample was taken and it is not disputed about this fact. It was argued that from remaining 57 bottles no sample was taken and there is no proof whether those bottles contained liquor or not. So it was argued that according to Section 14 of the Rajasthan Excise Act after obtaining pass from the authority concerned a person can carry or transport a particular number of bottles of liquor. Then vide Notification dated 3011-1961 the State Government prescribed the limit to transport the liquor. Sub-Clause-B of that Notification reveals that 4 units could be the maximum quantity for export or transport without permit. Thus, a person can transport without obtaining any permit from the concerned authority 4 units of liquor. Then vide Notification dated 3011-1961 the State Government prescribed the limit to transport the liquor. Sub-Clause-B of that Notification reveals that 4 units could be the maximum quantity for export or transport without permit. Thus, a person can transport without obtaining any permit from the concerned authority 4 units of liquor. It has been further clarified in the Note and according to this Note one unit for the purposes of this notification shall be construed as equal to any of the following of the metric equivalents thereof namely: [i] One quart bottle of spirit, or [ii] Two quart bottles of wine, or [iii] Nine quart bottles fermented liquor of strength exceeding two percent of alcohol by volume, or [iv] Twenty seven quart bottles of formented liquors of strength not exceeding two percent of alcohol by volume. 4. Thus a person can transport 4 units without permit. One unit equal to two quart bottles, means a person is permitted to carry or transport 8 quart of bottles without any permit. What is the meaning of the quart is to be seen now. According to the Oxford Dictionary; quart means measuring of capacity equal to two pints or about 1,14 litres. Thus, 8 quarts are equal to 9.12 litres. One litre decidedly is more than a bottle so in any case a person can carry or transport without permit about 9-10 bottles of liquor. In the present case the sample was taken from three bottles only and on chemical examination it was found that these samples are of liquor. No sample was taken from other 57 bottles and it cannot be said or presumed that those 57 bottles also containedl iquor. It was the duty of the S.I. who checked the car to take the sample from each bottle i.e. from 60 bottles and then the samples should have been sent for chemical analysis whether these samples are of liquor or of other liquid. But now the position is very clear and it is not disputed that only three samples from three bottles were taken. Those samples were found of liquor it means that the petitioner was carrying only three bottles of liquor which is permitted according to the Rajasthan Excise Act. But now the position is very clear and it is not disputed that only three samples from three bottles were taken. Those samples were found of liquor it means that the petitioner was carrying only three bottles of liquor which is permitted according to the Rajasthan Excise Act. No pass is necessary for transporting the liquor upon 10 bottles while the petitioner was found in possession of three bottles of liquor only as is clear from the report of the Chemical Examiner. 5. Shri Bajwa, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Parma Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1984 Cr. Law Reports 613. In this case it has been observed as under: "There is no dispute that eleven gunny bags each containing 20 bottles of liquid were found in possession of the accused. There is also no dispute that sample from only one bottle out of 20 bottles found in each gunny bag was taken. The sample of the liquid of the remaining 19 bottles of each gunny bag, that is to say 209 bottles, were not taken, Thus, the samples from the liquid contents of only eleven bottles were taken. Since the samples from the remaining 209 bottles were not taken, it cannot be said that the liquid found in those 209 bottles was liquor." 6. In the present case the petitioner was found in possession transporting 60 bottles of liquid and sample was taken only from three bottles Samples from remaining 57 bottles of liquid were not taken. Therefore it cannot be said that those 57 bottles were of liquor. Therefore, the petitioner was found carrying three bottles of liquor. 7. Another case cited is that of Shankar v. State of Rajasthan 1985 Cr. Law Report (Raj.) 600. In this case it was observed that "Since only two bottles containing the liquid were sent for chemical examination to the Chief Public Analyst, and on chemical examination they were found to contain the liquor, what can be held is that only two bottles of liquor were found in possession of the accused. It cannot be positively said that the remaining 131 bottles containing liquid, found in possession of the accused Were of liquor. 8. Similar is the position in the present case. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that this is a petition under Section 482 Cr. It cannot be positively said that the remaining 131 bottles containing liquid, found in possession of the accused Were of liquor. 8. Similar is the position in the present case. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that this is a petition under Section 482 Cr. PC where this Court has to see whether there is any prima facie case made out against the petitioner for prosecuting him As three bottles of liquor were found with the petitioner according to the report of the Chemical Examiner and remaining 57 bottles were treated to be as of the liquor So there is a prima facie case and the matter rests on the evidence which can be adduced at the time of trial I do not agree with this argument. No doubt, 60 bottles of liquid were being transported by the petitioner and samples of three bottles were only taken and on chemical examination those three bottles were found of liquor but there is no proof that the other 57 bottles were also of liquor. Thus, I fail to understand how the prosecution will prove that these 57 bottles were of liquor when sample of these bottles were not sent to Chemical Examiner. 9. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Anr. v. Sambhaji Rao Chanroji Rao Angre and Ors. 1988 Supreme Court 709, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: "The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage." 10. Thus, keeping all the rulings in mind while considering the petition and specially the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if ultimately the chance of conviction are bleak then there is no useful purpose to allow or continue the criminal proceedings against the person. In such circumstances this Court has inherent power under Section 482, Cr.PC to quash the proceedings of framing charge. According to the Police record and the report of the Chemical Examiner the petitioner was transporting only three bottles of liquor for which he is empowered according to the Act. No pass or permit is necessary to carry three bottles of liquor, therefore, it is no sense to continue the proceedings in the lower Court and as such I am of the view that the charge framed by the learned trial Court is not correct and it is to be quashed. 11. As a result, the petition is allowed. The charge framed by the Court against the petitioner under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the proceedings are quashed.Petition Allowed. *******