BABLOO SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has submitted an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR lodged against him for a crime which was registered at Police Station, Harpalpur, District Chhatarpur at Crime No.84 of 2010 for offences punishable under Section 34(2) and 39 of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter it would be referred to as "the Act") and also the proceedings initiated on the basis of that FIR.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that on 15.5.2010 550 boxes of Cox Mirinda whisky, in all 4752 litres of liquor, was found plied in Truck No.MP-16H-0209 within the territory of Police Station, Harpalpur. It was informed that whisky was of export quality and according to the contract between the manufacturers and purchaser of a company situated at Singapore that consignment was to be delivered at Kandla Port, Gujarat. It was also informed that a transit pass was issued to transport that consignment from Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur to Kandla Port. On 15.5.2010 in the night the truck was checked in the territory of Harpalpur Police Station and it was found that one Kallu Ghosi was driving the said truck and he was accompanied by Babloo Singh (the petitioner) and Raju Raikwar. On enquiry it was found that the vehicle with the consignment was to be taken by the petitioner and other co-accused persons to a shop at Village Ribai in Uttar Pradesh. Accused Raju Raikwar was Salesman of that shop. Place from where liquor as well as the truck was seized was not in the route of the transit pass. Initially no transit pass was found with any of the accused persons. It was provided by concerned Excise Inspector to the police authorities and therefore, a case for offences punishable under Sections 34(2) and 39 of M.P. Excise Act was registered.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the various documents submitted by the parties including the case diary, it is to be considered as to whether prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner and therefore, FIR and consequently proceedings may be quashed ?