Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1432 (MP)

BANSH BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-12-11

S.C.SINHO

body2008
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed by applicant for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No. 226/06 and criminal proceedings pending before the JMFC, Churhat Sidhi as criminal case No. 93/07. 3. Prosecution case is that the applicant is a license holder of Firm M/s Ganga Group and Vanshbahadur Singh (licensee of Indian Liquor). Co-accused Arun Singh and Ramraj Singh were found in possession of liquor while they were transporting it from Churhat to Mohaniya at Badkhera Tiraha on 8-9-2006 at 15.30 p.m. by Head Constable Anjani prasad, Police Station Churhat and Crime No. 222/06 was registered under section 34(2), 52 of Excise Act 1915. It is alleged that the above liquor was being transported in Marshal Jeep bearing No. MP 53-D/0846 and were caught near Badkhera Tiraha and police seized country made liquor in 4 sacks (36 litres) i.e. Bottles 200 x 180 ml = 36.00 quarters in packed bottles and after inquiry filed a challan before J.M.F.C. Churhat in Case No. 93/2007 registered under section 34(2), 52 of Excise Act. It is alleged that applicant is the license holder of Excise Department who is dealing with the country made liquor. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Sandeep Singh has stated that applicant was not present on the spot and there was not an iota of evidence against him in the FIR. He further submits that in another similar matter M.Cr.C. No. 544/08 applicants/co-accused Arun Singh and Ramraj Singh, proceedings were quashed by this Hon'ble Court for the same offence. They were caught with the country made liquor whereas the present applicant is only a license holder. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and prays for dismissal. 6. It is not disputed that the country made liquor was transported with valid "A-3" transit permit on 8-9-2006 by servant of applicant Arun Singh and Ramraj Singh. 7. General Licence Condition No. VII of Rule 62 of M. P. Excise Act, 1915 reads as under : R-VII. Appointment of agents and servants. - No agent shall be appointed for the management of any excise privilege without the previous approval of the District Excise Officer. Such approval may be withdrawn at any time. 7. General Licence Condition No. VII of Rule 62 of M. P. Excise Act, 1915 reads as under : R-VII. Appointment of agents and servants. - No agent shall be appointed for the management of any excise privilege without the previous approval of the District Excise Officer. Such approval may be withdrawn at any time. A servant or dependent of the licensee who merely assists in the shop shall not be deemed an agent within the meaning of this rule, but a person other than the wife or husband of the licensee, who manages a shop on behalf of the licensee shall be considered an agent even though he be a member of the licensee's family. 8. Section 62 of M. P. Excise Act, 1915 gives powers to make rules for purpose of carrying out the provisions of Excise Act but it is nowhere provided in the M. P. Excise Act, 1915 that the liquor can only be transported along with appointed agents and servants of liquor contractor after obtaining transit permit from Excise department. 9. It will be profitable to re-produced section 34(1)(a) and (2) of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915, as under :- (a) manufactures, transports, imports, exports collects of possesses any intoxicant ; (b) ------------ (c) ------------ (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if a person is convicted for an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) and the quantity of the intoxicant being liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of the offence exceeds fifty bulk litre, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees but may extend to one lac rupees : Provided that when any person is convicted under this section for an offence for second or subsequent time, he shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but may extend to two lac rupees. 10. 10. It is nowhere provided in Annexure-A/3 transit permit or in General Licensee Condition that even after having legal transit permit of liquor Annexure A-3 it can be transported only along with the servant appointed under General Licensee Conditions R-VII. 11. Proceedings against co-accused Arun Singh and Ramraj Singh were quashed in M.Cr.C. No. 544/08 vide order dated 8-5-2008. Applicant is license holder of liquor contract and even he was not present on the spot. There is not an iota of evidence against him in charge-sheet. 12. For the reasons stated in M.Cr.C. No. 54/08, this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code also succeeds and the F.I.R. dt. 8-9-2006 registered by the Police Station Churhat under Crime No. 222/06 in Criminal Case No. 93/2007, State of M. P. vs. Arun Singh and another pending before J.M.F.C. Churhat against the applicant under sections 34(2), 52 of Excise Act is hereby quashed. Certified Copy as per rules.