Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Lakhera vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:48561
1 MCRC-28328-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28328 of 2024
RAVI LAKHERA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Kumar Baghel - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Y.D. Yadav - Government Advocate for respondent-State.
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR / Crime No.232/2024 registered at the Police Station, Bamitha District Chhatarpur in respect of the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and ensued proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the prosecution of the applicant is based on the allegations that on 02.06.2024, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration no.UP-95-T-7530 and upon its checking, there was a seizure of 205 bulk liters of liquor. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant is a license holder and the same has been brought on record as Annexure-A/2, which has been issued in terms of Rule 8(1)(a-1) of the Excise Rule in prescribed format (F.C.L.-
1). Therefore, by virtue of Section 61 of M.P. Excise Act, the prosecution of the applicant is not permissible unless the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 24-09-2024 17:33:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:48561 2 MCRC-28328-2024 complaint/report is made by Collector or an Excise Officer not below the rank of the District Excise Officer.
3. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case, there is no complaint by the Collector or any Officer not below the rank of the District Excise Officer. It is contended by the counsel that previously also the present applicant was prosecuted on the same grounds and the entire proceedings were quashed by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.37373/2021 (Ravi Lakhera vs. State of M.P.). It is the further contention of the counsel that the police has alleged that the present applicant ran away from the spot but the counsel contends that the applicant had undergone an orthopedic surgery and a rod was implanted in his leg and the documents to that effect have been brough on record as Annexure-A/4 and the same have also been verified by the counsel for the State, therefore, the allegations were apparently unsustainable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are direct allegations against the applicant and therefore, the legal transportation is a subject matter of trial which is to be conducted against the applicant and the other co-accused. Hence, counsel submits that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the record reflects that the prosecution against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 24-09-2024 17:33:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:48561 3 MCRC-28328-2024 applicant is based on account of seizure of 205 bulk liter of liquor. A case under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act has been registered against the applicant. The applicant is undisputedly holder of a license which is contained in Annexure-A/2.
7. Section 61 of M.P. Excise Act provides as under:-
"61. Limitation of prosecution(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable-(a) under [Section 34 for the contravention of any condition of a license, permit or pass granted under this Act, Section 37], Section 38, section 38-A, section 39, except on a complaint or report the Collector or an Excise Officer not below the rank of District Excise Officer as may be authorized by the Collector in this behalf;
(b) under any other section of this Act other than Section 49 except on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer or Police Officer."
8. A perusal of the aforesaid section reflects that the complaint under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act against a license holder is to be filed by the Collector or Excise Officer not below to the rank of District Excise Officer as may be authorized by the Collector. In the present case, undisputedly there is no report/complaint by the Authorities which are mentioned in Section 61 of the M.P. Excise Act. Therefore, in view of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 24-09-2024 17:33:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:48561 4 MCRC-28328-2024 the law laid down by the this Court in the case of Ravi Lakhera vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.37373/2021), the prosecution of the present applicant who is a license holder is unsustainable.
9. This Court in the case of Ravi Lakhera (supra) held in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under.
"9. Section 61 reflects that the complaint is to be filed by the Collector or his authorized officer or on the report on the case may be. Here in the present case, admittedly neither the complaint has been made by the Collector to the police nor in the form of private complaint to the competent criminal court nor any report has been sent by the Collector or any authorized officer on his behalf. Therefore the prosecution against the present petitioner is against the provision of Section 61 of the Act.
10. Since the petitioner is having valid license issued by the District Excise Officer, therefore, considering the fact that petitioner having valid license on his right to sale liquor, it can not be assumed that the petitioner has committed any offence under Section 34 (or 42 of the Act.), in the case of Smt.Nagawwa Vs. Veerann Shivalingappa Knojalgi and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1947 and State of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 24-09-2024 17:33:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:48561 5 MCRC-28328-2024 Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Supreme Court has referred the illustrative cases wherein the proceedings against the accused can be quashed or set aside 4 which are as under:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint of the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been base either on no evidence or on materials Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 24-09-2024 17:33:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:48561 6 MCRC-28328-2024 which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like."
10. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid law, this Court is of the considered view that as the present applicant is a license holder, the complaint against him was not maintainable having not been made by the Collector or the Officer not below the rank of District Excise Officer. Hence, the prosecution so far as the same relates to applicant stands quashed.
11. Accordingly, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The entire proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR/Crime No.23/2022 stand quashed so far as they relate to the applicant. The applicant stands discharged of the aforesaid charges and his bail bonds, if any, also stand cancelled.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 24-09-2024 17:33:15