SUBH KARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in this application under Section 482 Cr. PC. The facts necessary for the disposal of this application are briefly stated. They are these. A pitcher containing formented wash is said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. A charge -sheet was filed against the accused after the expiry of six months from his arrest which is said to have taken place on November 27,1979. An application under Section 300(5) read with Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the accused petitioner in the court of learned Magistrate. That application was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and the same was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge under his judgment dated September 16, 1985.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (for short, the Act) was registered against him and a charge -sheet for the said offence was not submitted before the learned Magistrate. According to him, subsections (5) and (6) of Section 167 Cr.PC were attracted and no cognizance of the offence could have been taken.

(3.) IT will therefore be clear that viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence. No case for interference is made out. The application is dismissed is limine.