YOGESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Yogesh Kumar has prayed for quashing of FIR No.60/12-13, registered at Police Station Excise, Alwar East, Alwar for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950(for short 'the Act.)

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 06.02.2013, one Veerendra Kumar, S.I., had lodged the above FIR, wherein he had claimed that he had received a secret information from an informer that illicit liquor was kept at the petitioner's house. Upon receipt of this information, he along with others, left the Police Station at 4.15 P.M. and reached the petitioner's house at 4.40 P.M.. Since it was not feasible for him to procure a search warrant, he invoked his power under Section 47 of the Act. When he reached the petitioner's home, he found his wife there. He informed the wife as to the reason for searching of the house. Upon searching the house, they recovered 29 cartoons containing 480 pouches of country-made liquor, and 912 pouches of Rani brand country-made liquor. Therefore, a case for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Act was registered against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Manish Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner happens to be a retired Government servant. On 06.02.2013, neither the petitioner, nor any of his family member was present as they had gone to Hapur to attend a wedding in the petitioner's sister's family. Therefore, the allegation that the raiding party had met the petitioner's wife at home is patently false. Secondly, no recovery memo has been chalked out and even in the recovery memo, there is no signature of the petitioner's wife. Thirdly, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case as he had informed the Excise Department about the illicit liquor being manufacture/ transported and being kept in the locality. Since he is a whistle blower, he is being falsely implicated in the present case. Lastly, there are affidavits of the neighbours, which clearly testify to the fact that the petitioner and his family members were not available in the house on the date of the incident. He, therefore, prays that the FIR should be quashed.