GOVIND BHAYAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused/Petitioner has filed this Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings of Crime No.593/2019, registered at Police Station Patan, District Jabalpur, for offence punishable under Section 34 of M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

(2.) Case of prosecution in short is that on 19.9.2019, Assistant Sub Inspector Tikaram Prajapati of Police Station Patan, received an information that some persons are transporting illicit liquor by a vehicle (Pick up) bearing registration No.MP-20-G/1858. Thereafter, Assistant Sub Inspector and other police officials reached on the spot, they tried to stop the said vehicle No. MP-20-20-G/1858, but driver of the said vehicle did not stop the said vehicle. After some time driver left the said vehicle on the road and ran away. The said vehicle was searched and 1674 bulk liters of country made liquor was found, thereafter liquor and vehicle were seized. It is found that co-accused Mohd. Taj @ Tajju is the registered owner of the aid vehicle. FIR was lodged. On 30.9.2019, co-accused Mohd. Taj @ Tajju was arrested, his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and he disclosed that other co-accused bought the alleged liquor from the present accused/petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused/ petitioner is purely baseless. Present accused/petitioner is not registered owner of that vehicle. He was not present on the spot. Accused/petitioner is made as an accused upon the memorandum statement of co-accused. No other material is available against the accused/petitioner. Statement of co-accused has been recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is not admissible with regard to the present accused/petitioner. Apart from this, accused/petitioner is licensee of foreign liquor and country made liquor. Therefore, criminal prosecution against the accused/petitioner is also barred by Section 61 of M.P. Excise Act, so initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioner is contrary to law. Therefore, he prays for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings against the accused/petitioner.