S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.) The relevant fact in the appeal/revision is that the Excise Inspector filed a challan against the respondent or respondents under the Rajasthan Excise Act. An objection was taken by the respondent (s) in the trial court that the complaint could not be filed by the Excise Inspector and, therefore, the trial court could not take cognizance of the offence. This plea was up held and consequently the respondent (s) was/were acquitted.
(2.) It is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the view taken by the trial court is not tenable in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1980 and 199 of 1980, State of Rajasthan v. Rooparam, (1980 Cr. L.R. Raj 557. ) The learned counsel for the respondent (s) could not effectively meet this contention. It was thus observed in the said authority - "Inspectors have been invested with the powers of Excise Officers, and as such, they are Excise Officers within the meaning of Section 3 (7) of the Act, so they are competent to make a complaint or the report in respect of the offences enumerated in section 67 (1) (a) on which Magistrate can take cognizance." 4. I am, therefore of the opinion that the Excise Inspector could file a complaint/challan under the Excise Act and the trial court was in error in acquitting the respondent (s) on the ground that the Excise Inspector was not authorised to file a complaint/challan. 5. I, therefore, accept this appeal/and set aside the judgment of the trial court of the acquittal of the respondent (s) and direct the trial of the case. The respondent (s) is directed to appear before the trial court on 5th May, 1981. Sd/- S.N. Deedwania, J. State Appeal Accepted.;