ORDER : Budi Habung, J. Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of Itanagar Police Station FIR No.44/2024, under Section 31(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993 and corresponding G.R. Case No.220/2024 in connection with Itanagar Police Station Case No.44/2024, under Section 31(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Itanagar P.S. Case No.44/2024 was registered on a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, who is the Assistant Inspector, Tax and Excise (Narcotic), Zone-II Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, wherein it was alleged that a team of police and flying squad team conducted checking of wine shop at Chandranagar area on 20.03.2024. And during such exercise, it was discovered that one wine shop, namely, T.G. Tamin Wine shop, whose allotted area at Niti Vihar was running from parsi-parslo complex, Chandranagar; 266954 litres of liquor found in the shop were seized and sealed and based on the above, the FIR was registered and investigated into. 4. It is submitted that there is specific legal bar for filing of such FIR, registration and investigation of the case by police inasmuch as there is a specific provision provided under the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993 for redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the offence under Section 34(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993 is to be investigated by the Collector or Excise Officers. It is further submitted that the power to investigate an offence in such a case is provided under Section 66 of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993. And under Section 75 of the said Act, it is provided that no Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence referred to in section 34, section 37, section 43 or section 44 except on his own knowledge or suspicion, or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer or an Officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. And under Section 75 of the said Act, it is provided that no Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence referred to in section 34, section 37, section 43 or section 44 except on his own knowledge or suspicion, or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer or an Officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the procedure for investigation of such case is provided under Section 66 sub-Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the AP Excise Act, 1993. The said provision is reproduced hereinbelow : "66. (1) Any Collector, or any Excise Officer empowered under section 65, sub-section (2), may after recording in writing his reason for suspecting the Commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, exercise,- (a) any of the powers conferred upon Police Officers making an investigation, or upon an officer-in-charge of a Police Station by sections 160 to 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and (b) as regards offences punishable under section 34, section 37, section 43 or section 44 of this Act,- any of the powers conferred upon Police Officer in respect of cognizable offences by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 30 and by section 44 of the said code and the said portions of the said code shall apply accordingly, subject to any restrictions or modifications prescribed. (2) Subject to any restrictions prescribed by the State Government a Collector, or an Excise Officer empowered under section 65 of sub-section (2), may, without reference to a Magistrate, and for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, stop further proceedings against any person concerned, or supposed to be concerned in any offence which he or any Excise Officer subordinate to him has investigated. (3) For this purpose of section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the area to which an Excise Officer empowered under section 65, sub-section (2), is appointed shall be deemed to be a Police Station, and such officer shall be deemed to be the officer-in-charge of such station. (3) For this purpose of section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the area to which an Excise Officer empowered under section 65, sub-section (2), is appointed shall be deemed to be a Police Station, and such officer shall be deemed to be the officer-in-charge of such station. (4) As soon as investigation by a Collector or by an Excise Officer empowered under section 65, sub-section (2), has been completed, if it appears that there is sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the investigating officer, unless he proceeds under sub-section (2), of this section or under section 56 of this Act, shall submit a report which shall, for the purposes of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be deemed to be a Police report to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case and empowered to take cognizance of offences on Police reports. 6. It is further submitted that the procedure established by the statute i.e., the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993 supersedes the procedure of investigation provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, no FIR can be registered by the police for contravention of Section 34 of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993. 7. In view of the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the above Itanagar Police Station FIR No.44/2024 under Section 34(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993; the investigation and subsequently charge-sheet submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia is bad in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 8. Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while conceding the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per the provision under Section 66 of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993, the Collector, or any Excise Officer empowered under section 65, sub-section (2), may after recording in writing his reason for suspecting the Commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, exercise-any of the powers conferred upon Police officers making an investigation. However, in the instant case, the Assistant Inspector, Tax and Excise (Narcotic) has lodged the above FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Itanagar, who then had investigated the case and also submitted the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which is not in accordance with the said Act. He further submits that in such a case, as provided under Section 75 of the AP Excise Act, 1993, no Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence referred to in section 34 except on his own knowledge or suspicion, or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer or an Officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. And as provided under the provision of the AP Excise Act, 1993, the Assistant Inspector, Tax and Excise (Narcotic), if empowered, he himself could have taken up the matter for investigation and pass necessary order(s) as required under the Act. In support of his submission, the learned Additional P.P. has cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Anr., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that “… (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (Under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party…” 9. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the record produced before this Court and the relevant provisions in the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act 1993 and also the case relied upon by the parties. 10. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record and the provisions provided under the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993, it appears that while filing the FIR, the registration of the case and for conducting the investigation of the matter, the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the said Act has not been followed in the instant case. The Assistant Inspector, Tax and Excise (Narcotic) as per the Act, if he is empowered ought to have carried out the investigation of the case by himself. The Assistant Inspector, Tax and Excise (Narcotic) as per the Act, if he is empowered ought to have carried out the investigation of the case by himself. However, in the instant case, the respondent No.2/Assistant Inspector, Tax and Excise (Narcotic) has instead lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Itanagar, who then had registered the case and investigated into. Not only that, the I.O. of the case after completion of the investigation has submitted the case into charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. The above procedure followed in the case by the respondent are not in accordance with the provisions provided under sections 66 and 75 of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons as stated above, the Itanagar Police Station FIR No.44/2024, registered under Section 31(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Act, 1993; the charge sheet submitted thereto with corresponding G.R. Case No.220/2024 and the subsequent criminal proceedings in the above G.R. case No.220/2024 against the petitioner, Smti. Mingam Karcho needs to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 12. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the case in accordance with the provision provided under the Act. 13. With the above observation, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. Send back the TCR immediately.