- (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing of charge-sheet filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C., in Criminal Case No.126/2010 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar.
(2.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Gupta, that in three FIRs lodged before the police and investigated by the police, the police had come to the conclusion that the premises owned by the petitioner were, in fact, in possession of one Ram Gopal Chaudhary. In those cases, the police did not array the petitioner as an accused. However on 30th March, 2010, when the officers of the Excise Department raided the said premises, they recovered a large amount of illicit liquor. According to the Excise Department, the present petitioner is involved in violation of the Excise Act along with Ram Gopal. Therefore, they had filed a charge-sheet against both Ram Gopal and the present petitioner. The learned counsel has also contended that on the basis of the same facts while police has come to the conclusion that the possession of the premises belongs to Ram Gopal, the Excise Department has erred in concluding that the possession, in fact, belongs to the present petitioner. Secondly, although Sections 19 and 54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 deal with the concept of possession, as the possession was not with the present petitioner, it cannot be claimed by the prosecution that the petitioner had committed offences under Section 19/54 of the Act. Thirdly, he has contended that during the course of investigation, the petitioner had submitted lease-deed, whereby premises were rented out to Ram Gopal by the petitioner for a period of eleven months. Even subsequently the said lease deed was extended and Ram Gopal continued to pay rent till 31.07.2008. IT is only for a period of six months - from 31.08.2008 till the end of 2009 - that Ram Gopal did not pay the rent of the said premises. This fact also shows that the possession was that of Ram Gopal and not of the present petitioner. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had submitted an application before the police clearly stating that the petitioner is being falsely implicated by the Excise Department. On the said application, the police had carried out an investigation and a report dated 03.05.2010 was sent by the SHO, Police Station Jhalawar to the Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar. Even according to this report, the possession of the said premises were with Ram Gopal and not with the present petitioner. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no offence under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act is made out against the present petitioner. Therefore, the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned charge-sheet. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet clearly reveals that according to the Excise Department, the premises were, indeed, rented out from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2007. According to the department, copy of the said lease deed was submitted by the petitioner's brother Trilok Chand Singh. Moreover, the receipts of the rental amount was submitted till 01.08.2008. Thereafter, no further receipts of the rental amount was submitted. Thus, the Excise Department was of the opinion that there is no evidence to prove the fact that after 01.08.2008 the premises continued to be in the possession of Ram Gopal. Therefore, the Excise Department had concluded that in fact the possession was that of the petitioner and not of Ram Gopal. A bare perusal of the report dated 03.05.2010 also shows that the police had also come to a similar conclusion. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the possession was with of Ram Gopal on 30.03.2009 is not borne out at the present stage. The issue as to who had the possession of the premises from where illicit liquor was recovered is an issue that can be decided only by the learned trial Court after going through the evidence. Thus, this Court cannot interfere at the present stage. Needless to say in catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that High Court, in its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not interfere at the initial stage of trial. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed. ;