MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, with a recommendation that the order of the learned Special Judicial (Railway) Magistrate Jodhpur taking cognizance against the petitioner of an offence under section 54 (a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act may be quashed.

(2.) The reference arises under the following circumstances:-

(3.) I have gone through the record and heard Mr. S. K. Vyas learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. L. Mardia, Public Prosecutor. For the reasons mentioned below the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, cannot be accepted. From a bare perusal of the notification No. F. 1(52,) E & T/61, dated 9th Sept., 1961 (issued by the Rajasthan Government) it is evident that a Sub-Inspector of Police could exercise the powers and perform the duties under sections 44, 47 and 67 (1) (a) of the Act in all cases except in cases in respect of the retail licences granted for the sale of liquor under the Act. The instant case is not a case in respect of retail licence granted to the petitioner for sale of liquor under the Act. The case against the petitioner was that he was found in possession of 36 bottles of liquor without having any licence or permit for their possession. Sec. 54(a) of the Act clearly lays down that whoever possesses any excisable article in contravention of the Act or of any rule or order made or of any licence, permit or pass granted thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000.00. From a bare look into the recovery memo prepared by the Station House Officer at the time of seizure of 36 bottles from the possession of the petitioner it appears prima facie that the petitioner had obtained a permit for purchase of 22 bottles and 500 grams of liquor from the Government warehouse, Merta, and that he was not having a permit or a licence for purchase of 36 bottles. Hence, I am unable to subscribe to the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, that the offence in this case was in respect of retail licence granted to the petitioner for sale of liquor under the Act. In this view of the matter. Shri Dungar Singh, Station House Officer, Government Railway Police, Merta Road could investigate into the matter and file a report against the petitioner in exercise of the powers and performance of the duties under sections 44, 47 and 67 (1) (a) of the Act by virtue of the referred to above notification of the Rajasthan Government, dated Sept. 9, 1961. The learned Magistrate therefore, committed no error or illegality in taking cognizance of the offence under section 54 (a) of the Act against the petitioner on the police report made to him by Dungar Singh, S. H. O.