STATE Vs. TILLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These we three appeals by the State against Tillu, Munshi Ram and Jaswant Rai respectively in which a common question of law arises. Counsel have been heard and these three appeals may, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 1042 of 1954 is against Tillu, who was prosecuted for an offence under Section 60 (a), U. P. Excise Act. Criminal Appeal No. 1043 of 1954 is against Munshi Ram, who was prosecuted, under Section 60 (f), U. P. Excise Act. And Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 1954 is against Jaswant Rai, who was prosecuted under Section 60 (a), U. P. Excise Act. In all the three cases, which were tried separately by the same Magistrate, the Magistrate was of the view that he could not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 60 in view of the provisions of Section 70, U. P. Excise Act, because the complaint or the report had been made by the Station officer of the police station who was not an "excise officer" within the meaning of the term under Section 70 of the Act.

(2.) The point is covered by two clear decisions of two Division Benches of this Court and also by a number of Single Judge decisions. But the case which appears to have been cited before the learned Magistrate upon which he relied in support of his view was a single Judge decision of this Court In Badruddin v. State, 1950 All LJ 263: (AIR 1950 All 436) (A). This decision has been dissented from in the later decisions of this Court.

(3.) Section 70, U. P. Excise Act, which deals with cognizance of offences within the purview of the Act runs as follows: