STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LAXMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals raise an important and interesting question as to whether an Excise Inspector is an Excise Officer within the meaning of the expression "excise Officer" as defined under Clause (7) of Section 3 of the Rajas-than Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and whether he can present a complaint or a report under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 67 of the Act on which cognizance can be taken by a Magistrate.

(2.) THE matter has come up before us in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court in S. B. Criminal Revision No. 398 of 1975laxman Singh v. The State of Rajasthan decided on 31-1-1979, S. N. Deedwania, J. , took the view that Excise Inspector is an Excise Officer and is competent to present a complaint or a report under Section 67 (1) (a) of the Act and cognizance can be taken thereon, whereas Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, J. , in S. B. Criminal Revn. No. 237 of 1976, Bhagwana v. State of Rajasthan (decided on 28-3-1979) took a contrary view and the earlier decision of Deedwania J. , was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge deciding Bhagwana's case.

(3.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1980 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 1, Hanumangarh, acquitted the accused-respondent Laxmansingh of the offence under Section 54 (a) (c) and (d) of the Act on the ground that the complaint was presented by the Excise Inspector on which no cognizance could have been taken. Similarly in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1980 following the view taken in Bhagwana's case, the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, acquitted the accused-respondent Roop Ram of the offence under Section 54 (a) of the Act. After grant of leave to appeal these appeals have been ordered to be put up before the larger Bench.