- (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.3.2012 of Additionaal Sessions Judge (Fast Track ) No.2 Head Quarter Shrimadhopur in Criminal revision No. 25/12 filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 11.2.2012 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Shrimadhopur in criminal case No. 225/11 by which he dismissed the application moved by the accused petitioners for discharging them from the charge under sections 18 read with section 54 (E) and 54 ( D) of Rajasthan Excise Act.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that an FIR No. 18/2010 was registered at Excise Circle, Neem Ka Thana for offence under sections 18/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. On the basis of the charge sheet field by the police, the trial court framed the charge against the accused petitioners for offence under sections 18 read with sections 54 (E) and 54 (D) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The learned counsel for the petitioenrs submits that when the arguments on charge were heard by the trial court, the accused petitioners were behidn the bars and h3nce could not give proper instructions to their pleader and after relesing on bail, the accused petitioners moved an application before the trial court praying therein to discharge them from the charge under section 18 read with section 54 (E) and 54 (D) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. It was argued that the accused petitioners do not run the business of the company but they are just its employees and were not incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The trial court rejected the application moved by the petitioner for their discharge. Against the order dated 11.2.2012 they preferred revision petition but the same was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 3.3.2012. The learned counsel has argued that in a similar matter of charge under section 18 read with sections 54 (E) and 54 (D) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the revisonal court on the similar facts and grounds has discharged the accused persons. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Raj Kunwar Kalani vs. State of Rajasthan (2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 59), Sajjan Singh Jain and others vs. State of Rajasthan (2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 52) and the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2) Sikar Headquarter Shri Madhopur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 43 of 2011. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, PP appearing for the State has contended that the revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and the revisional court rightly rejected the revision petition against an interlocutory order rejecting the application of the accused petitioners for quashing the charge framed against them. The impugned order is just and proper and the revisional court has not committed any error in rejecting the application for quashing the charge framed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against the accused petitioners for the offence under Sections 18 read with Section 54 (D) and 54 (E) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the revisional court rejecting the revision. A perusal of the order passed by the ACJM reveals that the co-accused Vishnu Rathore has filed criminal Misc. Petition No. 2057/11 and 2058/2011 before this Court, in which the order of framing charges were challenged by him and both these petitions were dismissed by the the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 9.11.2011. The accused petitioners did not challenge the order of framing charges passed by the trial court on 20.6.2011 and 2.7.2011, hence the same have become final so far as the accused petitioners are concerned. The revision petition against the order of framing charge was maintainable in the revisional court i.e. Sessions Judge at the relevant time but the accused petitioners did not challenge the same and did not avail that remedy and at the fag end of the trial they have filed application before the trial court for quashing the charges framed against them and thereafter filed revision against the order passed on the application of the accused petitioners for their discharge for which no provision is available in the Cr.P.C. The order passed by the revisional court and the order rejecting the application of the accused petitioners have not determined the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the trial. The impugned orders are not final orders and it is an interlocutory order and against interlocutory order revision is not maintainable. For these reasons, I do not think it proper to interfere in the order passed by the revisional court rejecting the revision against an interlocutory order. It is hereby dismissed.;