DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused/petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor who accepts notices on behalf of the non-petitioner - State.
(2.) By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner - Pushpendra Meena has assailed the judgment impugned dated 16th December, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uniara, District Tonk by which, cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 19/54 and 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. On preferring revision petition against the said order, learned Sessions Judge, Tonk has rejected the same under order dated 20th February, 2017 which has also been assailed by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence collected during investigation against the accused/ petitioner and thus, charge-sheet was not filed against him. Without there being any evidence available on record and charge-sheet, learned trial Court on the basis of conjectures and surmises has ordered to take cognizance against the present petitioner. He further argues that even on perusal of the order impugned dated 16th December, 2002, it is apparent that no ground has been mentioned by the learned trial Court on the basis of which, cognizance is taken. Learned counsel has further argued that the Revisional Court, in its order dated 20th February, 2017 has mentioned that on the basis of the statements given by co-accused Gulab Chand, who happens to be the driver and Jagdish, who was Khalasi of the truck, the cognizance order passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. Learned counsel has averred that it is the settled proposition of law that statements of co-accused cannot be read as an evidence against the other accused. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 703 and in Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 337.;