- (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 15. 6. 2001 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No. 136/2000 whereby the revision has been partly allowed and the order dated 20. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara so far as it pertained to the taking of cognizance against Jamnalal Somani for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 342, 166 read with Section 120-B I. P. C. was set aside but the order as regards other accused persons was upheld.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that on 11. 9. 2000 Smt. Mansukh, the complainant, filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara against Jamnalal Somani, Assistant Excise Officer, Bhilwara, petitioner Nanuram Khatik, Excise Inspector, Bhilwara and Ramesh Parasar, Excise Guard, Bhilwara with the allegations that on that day she was in her house. Her husband was taking meals. At about 11-12 noon the above said accused persons after making preparation to beat came armed with Lathis in a jeep and after entering into her house started beating her husband Arjun Lal. When she tried to intervene, they pushed her aside by pulling her lock of hair. The accused persons without showing warrant of search took search of her house. They broke open the door of a room of the landlord situated in the same premises and searched the same but found nothing. Still they took away her husband Arjun Lal saying that they would involve him in a false case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara after preliminary inquiry under Sec. 200/202 Cr. P. C. took cognizance against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences on 20. 11. 2000. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision no. 136/2000 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara wherein the impugned order was passed which is under challenge by the petitioner in this petition. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the illicit liquor was seized by Jamna Lal, Assistant Excise Officer, Bhilwara and other accused persons were only members of the raiding party who had done no overtact and the learned revisional court has grossly erred in law in not accepting the revision of the petitioner and others in spite of the fact that it is trite law that if sanction is required for one accused who is superior officer and other accused persons who are acting under his orders and directions are also entitled to protection against prosecution. In this regard, he has also drawn my attention to Sec. 73 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. Learned Public Prosecutor could not rebut the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. No one has appeared on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 despite service of notice. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submission made at the Bar and have also gone through the impugned order. At the outset, it may be apposite to extract Sec. 73 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, which reads as under:- " 73. Bar on Certain suits- No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or against nay officer or person for anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act. " A bare perusal of this Section reveals that any action taken or intended to be taken in good faith under the Act by any officer or other person has been protected against civil suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings.
(3.) THIS provision is almost identical to Section 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which runs as under:- " No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government, Administrator, any Gold Control Officer or any person authorised by the Central Government or the Administrator for performing any functions under this Act, for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder. " In the case of Bhappa Singh vs. Rampal Singh and Others (1), the charge levelled by the complainant against the accused was that they had raised his jewellery shop on 12. 6. 1975 and simultaneously trespassed into the Chaubara of an adjoining shop in which Gurdev Singh, son of the appellant, was carrying on cloth business and they came into two groups. One group hurled abuses at the appellant and his people and demanded a bribe while the other group entered the cloth shop and rushed into the Chaubara upstairs, where they fired shots in order to commit dacoity. Their Lordships repelling the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant complaint that the actions of the respondents accused were nothing short of an attempt to commit murder, for which there was no valid excuse, held that accepting the argument would amount to giving a go-bye to Section 108 of the Gold (Control) Act, if cases of this type were allowed to be pursued to their logical conclusion, i. e. to that of conviction or acquittal. In this case the High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings against the officers of the Excise and Custom Department for the offences under Sec. 307, 452, 504, 342 and 148 read with Section 149 I. P. C. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the provisions of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 are also identical with the provisions of Section 73 of the Excise Act. Section 155 of the Customs act, 1962 are also identical with the provisions of Section 73 of the Excise Act. Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 runs as under:- " Section 155. Protection of action under the Act. (10 No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations. " ;