Man Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order and the record. The instant miscellaneous petitions has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt. 15.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions fudge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Revision No. 50/2008, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dt. 31.01.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapasan, district Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular Case No. 166/2003 (State vs. Kunwar Pal & Ors.) framing charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 19/ 54 read with Section 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that (1) in this case the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle and (2) the liquor, which was recovered in this case, is licensed liquor and if at all it is held that the petitioner was having control over the vehicle in question then too he cannot be held liable for the breach of condition of the licence committed by the driver; therefore, he submits that the impugned order framing charges is illegal and an abuse of process of the Court. He further submits that the liquor in question has been given on "Supurdginama" to the licence-holder.

Learned public prosecutor opposes the miscellaneous petition and submits that the police has recovered an agreement said to be executed between the petitioner and Bishan Singh and the registered owner of the vehicle, namely Rajesh Jain, as per which the petitioner purchased the vehicle from the registered owner on 01.06.2002. Therefore, he submits that on the date when the liquor was recovered, the petitioner was having control over the vehicle in question and as such the order framing charges against the petitioner cannot be said to unjustified.

Upon having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the record, it is manifest that the recovery of the liquor has been effected on 26.07.2002 whereas the agreement, which the prosecution relies upon for prosecuting the petitioner, has been executed between Bishan Singh, the petitioner and the registered owner of the truck, is dt. 20.08.2002.

There is another agreement on record, by which Bishan Singh purchased the vehicle from the registered owner Rajesh Jain on 08.10.2001. Thus, the documentary evidence, i.e. the agreement, as per which the petitioner came into the control of the vehicle, definitely came into existence on 20.08.2002, i.e. after the offence was committed.

Resultantly, it cannot be held that the petitioner was in possession or control of the vehicle when the recovery was made. The oral testimony of Bishan Singh and Rajesh Jain cannot be said to be of better evidentiary value than the document itself. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders cannot be sustained because from the documentary evidence on record, it is revealed that the petitioner was not having the possession/control on the vehicle, from which the liquor was seized on 26.07.2002. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The impugned order dt. 31.01.2008 passed by the learned trial Court, to the extent of framing charges against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.