Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner for transportation of liquor in violation of relevant conditions of the permit. The corresponding trial is pending as Cri. Case No. 1801/ 2007 in the Court of judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhnadaun. In that case, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) and (2)of the M. P. Excise Act (for short "the Act") has been taken against as many as 4 persons including the petitioner arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet submitted by SHO, P. S. Lakhnadaun after due investigation into the matter. ( 2. ) THE corresponding allegations made in the charge-sheet and its accomplishments may be summarized as under : On 23. 07. 2007 during routine checking of the vehicles on National Highway No. 7, Sub-Inspector c. K. Tiwari intercepted a truck, bearing registration no. RJ-11-GA-1100, proceeding towards Seoni. The vehicle was found carrying 1012 crates of Indian made Foreign Liquor (for short "imfl") under the brand name of "silver Jed Whisky" in pack size of 180 ml bottles in contravention of the corresponding conditions of the transport permit. The truck was being driven by Umashankar, a resident of Dhaulpur, rajasthan, who was accompanied by Cleaner namely bobby @ Satish, another resident of Dhaulpur and praveen Malviya, a resident of Jabalpur. During investigation, it was found that, at the relevant point of time, Praveen Malviya was an employee of the petitioner, who was working as Sales Representative of Jabalpur District of Gwalior Distillery. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that continuance of the prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court for the following reasons: (i) Being Sales Representative of Jabalpur District of gwalior Distillery, he was only authorized to look after the interests of the company and to deal with Excise Authorities at Jabalpur District and other company related matters of the area. (ii) At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was on leave and even otherwise was not responsible for violation of the transport permit. (ii) At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was on leave and even otherwise was not responsible for violation of the transport permit. (iii) During inquiry, it was found that driver of the truck, taking note of the fact that the Sagar-Jabalpur road was not in a good condition, drove the vehicle towards Narsinghpur where faced with heavy rains, he, being a stranger, took a wrong route and that is how, the vehicle containing the excise consignment reached Lakhnadaun. (iv) As contemplated in Rule 16 of the M. P Foreign liquor Rules 1996, the driver was under a duty to save wastage and loss of liquor and also to ensure that the consignment reached destination i. e. Jabalpur in a good condition. (v) Confession of co-accused Praveen Malviya that he had been directed by the petitioner to first go to narisinghpur where the truck was parked and to take it to Chhindwara, could not have formed basis of his prosecution. However, while opposing the prayer for quashing the prosecution, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has submitted that there is overwhelming material on record to suggest that the petitioner was actively involved in diverting the truck carrying the consignment to an altogether different destination obviously for a wrongful gain. ( 4. ) BEFORE entering into the question as to whether any offence under this Act would be made out against the petitioner from the allegations made in the charge-sheet, it would be necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of the Act. ( 5. ) THE passes for transport of the liquor are dealt with by section 11 that reads as under: "11. Passes for import, export or transport " (1) Passes for the import, export or transport of intoxicants may be granted by the Collector. Provided that passes for the import and export of such intoxicants as the Excise Commissioner may, from time to time determine, shall be granted only by the Excise Commissioner. (2) Such passes may be either general for definite periods and kinds of intoxicants, or special or for specified occasions and particular consignments only. " ( 6. ) FURTHER, the facts of the case do attract statutory presumption coached in the following terms under Section 43 of the Act : "presumption as to commission of offences in certain cases " In prosecutions under sec. " ( 6. ) FURTHER, the facts of the case do attract statutory presumption coached in the following terms under Section 43 of the Act : "presumption as to commission of offences in certain cases " In prosecutions under sec. 34, Sec. 35 and Sec. 36 it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed an offence punishable under that section in respect of " (a) any intoxicant, or (b) any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the manufacture of any intoxicant other than tari, or (c) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of an intoxicant, or from which an intoxicant has been manufactured, for the possession of which he is unable to account for satisfactorily. ( 7. ) MOREOVER, the concept of vicarious liability is not unknown to the Act. For this, reference may be made to Sections 41 and 44 of the Act, reproduced as under: section 41 :- "manufacture, sale or possession by one person on account of another " (1) Where any intoxicant has been manufactured or sold or is possessed by any person on account of any other person, and such other person knows or has reason to believe that such manufacture or sale was, or that such possession is, on his account the intoxicant, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been manufactured or sold by or to be in the possession of, such other person. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall absolve any person who manufactures, sells or has possession of any intoxicant on account of another person from liability to any punishment under this Act, for the unlawful manufacture, sale or possession of such intoxicant. " Section 44 :- "criminal liability of licensee for acts of servants " Where any offence under sec. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall absolve any person who manufactures, sells or has possession of any intoxicant on account of another person from liability to any punishment under this Act, for the unlawful manufacture, sale or possession of such intoxicant. " Section 44 :- "criminal liability of licensee for acts of servants " Where any offence under sec. 34, Sec. 35, Sec. 36, Sec. 36-A, Sec. 38, Sec. 38-A or Sec. 39 is committed by any person or in the employ and acting on behalf of the holder of a licence, permit or pass granted under this Act such holder shall also be punishable as if he had himself committed the same, unless he establishes that all due and reasonable precaution were exercised by him to prevent the commission of such offence: provided that no person other than the actual offender shall be punishable with imprisonment except in default of payment of fine. " ( 8. ) THE law is well settled on the point that the statement made by co-accused, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence act, cannot be used for implicating his associate. Further, the word "fact discovered", as occurred in Section 27 of the Indian evidence Act, is not equivalent to the object produced. For this, reference may be made to the decision of privy council in pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, that was approved by the Apex Court in H. P. Administration vs. Om prakash AIR 1972 SC 975 and reaffirmed in State (NCT of delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 . In addition, there cannot be any conflict with the proposition that the ban on confession made to a police officer under Section 25 of the indian Evidence Act applies to the whole statement (Aghnoo nagesia vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) SCR 134 referred to ). ( 9. ) HOWEVER, there is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner, being in-charge of the Company viz. Gwalior Distillery ltd. , was under a duty to ensure strict compliance with the following conditions of the pass : "the consignment shall not be broken in transit and shall be routed to the destination via rairu (Gwalior), Shivpuri, Guna, Sagar and Jabalpur" ( 10. The petitioner, being in-charge of the Company viz. Gwalior Distillery ltd. , was under a duty to ensure strict compliance with the following conditions of the pass : "the consignment shall not be broken in transit and shall be routed to the destination via rairu (Gwalior), Shivpuri, Guna, Sagar and Jabalpur" ( 10. ) THE fact that the petitioner was on leave at the relevant point of time was not, by itself, sufficient to absolve him from the duty particularly in view of the fact that Praveen Malviya, engaged by him as driver of his personal car, was also found traveling in the truck that was intercepted while going towards an altogether different destination. The fact that the prospective receiver of the consignment in question at Chhindwara could not be ascertained also does not assume any significance at this juncture in view of the allegation that petitioner"s employee namely Praveen Malviya, a resident of Jabalpur, was found traveling in the truck. Besides this, it would not be possible to consider the effect of any explanation furnished by the petitioner as to the presence of his car-driver in the vehicle. ( 11. ) IT is well settled that even a strong suspicion leading to presumption as to possibility as against certainty makes out a case for framing of charge. (State of A. P. vs. Golconda Linga swamy and another (2004 SCC (Cri) 1805) referred to ). ( 12. ) THIS apart, the inherent powers, under Section 482 of the code, are to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of Court but not to stifle a legitimate prosecution, when the issue involved, whether factual or legal can not be decided without sufficient material (Minu Kumari vs. State of bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359 referred to ). ( 13. ) IN this view of the matter, no interference with a legitimate prosecution is called for. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.