Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2750 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2008-12-18

G.S.SARRAF

body2008
Hon ble SARRAF, J.—This S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the First Information Report no.5/08 registered at the police station Jhalarapatan, district Jhalawar. 2. The police seized a truck HR 46B7432 (incorrect registration number) at about 2.00 a.m. on 4.1.2008 at the Chandrabhaga bridge wherein 998 cartons of liquor were being transported allegedly without any license whereupon a case under Section 19/54 Rajasthan Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was registered at the police station, Jhalarapatan. 3. According to the facts narrated in the petition, the petitioner no.1 Ashok Kumar is the Manager in National Industrial Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as the Corporation ) which prepared the Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) at Derabassi, Mohali in Punjab having license for import and export for supply of the liquor within and outside India. The corporation received orders from M/s. Happee Wines and M/s. Devi Wines for sending liquor along with import permit. The Deputy Commissioner, (Excise), Govt. of Puducherry issued import permit to M/s. Happyee Wines in connection with 600 cases and to M/s. Devi wines in connection with 400 cases and forwarded hologram labels bearing serial number for affixing the same on the liquor bottles before dispatch vide letters dated 13.11.2007 and 11.12.2007. The Photostat copies of the letters are Annexure-1 and Annexure-2. The Photostat copies of Permit For Import are annexure-3 and Annexure-4. The corporation sought permission for export from Excise and Taxation Officer (Ex.) Derabassi, Punjab and deposited the export pass fee vide letters dated 28.12.2007 which are Annexure-5 and Annexure-6. The amount was deposited by the corporation through challans. The Photostat copies of the challans are Annexure-7 and Annexure-8. As per the rules the corporation gave bond to the Excise and Taxation Officer (Excise) Derabassi Mohali (Punjab) to the effect tat they would submit the receipt of the delivery of the liquor to the party to whom it was sent. Photostat copies of the bonds are Annexure-9 and Annexure-10. The Excise and Taxation Officer (Excise), derabassi, district Patiala gave permission vide letter dated 28.12.2007 to the Officer-Incharge (Excise) of the Corporation who was posted in the corporation on behalf of the department to allow the corporation to transport the requi4red bottles of liquor. The Photostat copies of the letters dated 28.12.2007 are Annexure-11 and Annexure-12. The Photostat copies of form L-36 are Annexure-13 and Annexure-14. The Photostat copies of the letters dated 28.12.2007 are Annexure-11 and Annexure-12. The Photostat copies of form L-36 are Annexure-13 and Annexure-14. The Photostat copies of letters sent by the corporation to the Officer-Incharge (Excise) posted in the corporation are Annexure-15 and Annexure-16. The Photostat copies of L-38 are Annexure-17 and Annexure-18. The road permit issued to the parties in Form D-20A for transportation of the goods to the destination are Annexure-19 and Annexure-20. The Photostat copies of invoice are Annexure-21 and Annxure-22 while certificated of Insurance are Annexure-23 and Annexure-24. Kaka Transport Company was asked to deliver the goods to the party as per the Import Permit. The Photostat copies of the receipt issued by the Kaka Transport Company are Annexure-25 and Annexure-26. Afterwards the truck carried the goods and the same was checked at the check post Lalru (Punjab-Haryana border). The Photostat copies of the declaration issued by Lalru Check-post are Annexure-27 and Annexure-28. As per the petition the truck driver with an intent to cause loss to the corporation changed the number plate of the truck. The truck was then seized hereinabove. 4. Heard Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners nos.2 and 3 placed orders for liquor to the Corporation after obtaining Import Permits from the Govt. of Puducherry and the Corporation after taking permission from the Excise and Taxation Officer (Excise), Dera Bassi, district Patiala for transport of liquor from Dera Bassi to Puducherry and the liquor was not meant for any place in Rajasthan. He submits that since the liquor was neither exported from nor imported to the State of Rajasthan and since was not being transported from one place in Rajasthan to another place in Rajasthan, therefore, there was no violation of any provision of the Act. 6. Learned public prosecutor does not dispute that there was permit of Puducherry Government to import and there was permission of Punjab Government to transport and the seized liquor was being transported on the basis of genuine and valid documents but his contention is that the seized liquor could not be transported through the State of Rajasthan without a valid pass. 7. Section 14 of the Act runs as under:- "14. 7. Section 14 of the Act runs as under:- "14. Passes necessary for import, export and transport - No excisable article exceeding such quantity as the (State Government) may prescribe by notification in the (Official Gazette) either generally for (all the territories of the State of Rajasthan to which this act extends) or for any local area comprised therein shall be imported, exported o transported except under a pass issued under the provisions of the next following section: ...................................................................................................................................." 8. According to Section 3(25) of the Act transport means to move from one place to another [those parts of the State of Rajasthan to which this Act extends]. 9. It is clear that the liquor was neither exported from nor imported to any place in the State of Rajasthan. It is also clear that moving from one place which is not in Rajasthan to another place which is also not in Rajasthan is not covered by the definition of the word transport in Section 3(25) of the Act. If that be so then obviously no pass was needed and there was no violation of the provisions o Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, even if the entire story of the prosecution is taken to be true no offence is made out against the petitioners. 10. In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the FIR deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 11. Consequently, the FIR No.5/2008 registered at the police station Jhalarapatan district Jhalawar is quashed.