VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.3.2012 of Additionaal Sessions Judge (Fast Track ) No.2 Head Quarter Shrimadhopur in Criminal revision No. 25/12 filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 11.2.2012 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Shrimadhopur in criminal case No. 225/11 by which he dismissed the application moved by the accused petitioners for discharging them from the charge under sections 18 read with section 54 (E) and 54 ( D) of Rajasthan Excise Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that an FIR No. 18/2010 was registered at Excise Circle, Neem Ka Thana for offence under sections 18/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. On the basis of the charge sheet field by the police, the trial court framed the charge against the accused petitioners for offence under sections 18 read with sections 54 (E) and 54 (D) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The learned counsel for the petitioenrs submits that when the arguments on charge were heard by the trial court, the accused petitioners were behidn the bars and h3nce could not give proper instructions to their pleader and after relesing on bail, the accused petitioners moved an application before the trial court praying therein to discharge them from the charge under section 18 read with section 54 (E) and 54 (D) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. It was argued that the accused petitioners do not run the business of the company but they are just its employees and were not incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The trial court rejected the application moved by the petitioner for their discharge. Against the order dated 11.2.2012 they preferred revision petition but the same was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 3.3.2012. The learned counsel has argued that in a similar matter of charge under section 18 read with sections 54 (E) and 54 (D) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the revisonal court on the similar facts and grounds has discharged the accused persons. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Raj Kunwar Kalani vs. State of Rajasthan (2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 59), Sajjan Singh Jain and others vs. State of Rajasthan (2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 52) and the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2) Sikar Headquarter Shri Madhopur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 43 of 2011.