TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred to challenge the order of Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur) dated 4. 10. 2004 by which the revision petition against the order of Special Court (Economic Offences), Jodhpur dated 12. 7. 2001 was dismissed. The facts in brief are that a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act of 1962') was submitted in the Special Court (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur which was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur. In the complaint, the petitioner and one Raskhan were arrayed as accused. As per the prosecution case, on 1. 3. 1992 in the night, the officers of the customs department intercepted one Fiat car at about 5:15 AM (in the morning of 2. 3. 1992) and they tried to stop the vehicle, then instead of stopping the vehicle, the driver increased the speed to run away. The customs officers followed the fiat car and ultimately stopped that car. In the said car, 4 persons were sitting. Immediately when the car was stopped by the customs officials, all the 4 persons ran in different direction. To prevent them from running, air fire was made and ultimately, out of 4 persons, 2 persons, who were accused in the trial court, were caught. Two other persons succeeded in escaping. In the vehicle, 22 bricks of silver in one packet, 42 silver bricks in another and from one door of the car, 421 gold biscuits with foreign mark were recovered. Both the accused were interrogated but they could not give any satisfactory explanation for possessing the said articles and ultimately, they admitted that those silver and gold articles were brought from foreign country illegally. The car had number on its plate as RJ 19 C 2332. The articles were got examined. The statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 108 of the Act of 1962. A complaint was filed against these two accused for commission of offence under Sections 135 (1) (a), 135 (1) (b) and 135 (1) (t) of the Act of 1962. After hearing the arguments for framing the charge, the trial court vide order dated 12. 7. 2001, after considering the statement of the accused respondent Damodar Singh given under Section 108 of the Act of 1962, held that the respondent was driver of the vehicle in question and he was engaged to drive the vehicle for going to Jaisalmer and further to Devikot. The trial court observed that the respondent stated that he was afraid of other accused that he may be killed by them in case he will open his mouth. From the statement of the respondent, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the driver respondent had no knowledge that in the vehicle, other persons are carrying contrabands and transporting silver and gold articles illegally. On the basis of the above finding, the trial court discharged the respondent from the charge referred above. However, Raskhan was charged under Section 135 (1) of the Act of 1962. The department preferred revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur vide order dated 4. 10. 2004. Hence, this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the trial court proceeded under wrong assumption and looked into the defence set up by the accused at the time of framing of charge instead of presuming the allegation to be true of the prosecution so as to give opportunity to prosecution to prove the case. It is submitted that it is settled law that at the stage of framing of a charge, the defence of the accused could not be looked into.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted from the statement of accused petitioner under Section 108 of the Act of 1962 that the prosecution case stands fully proved by the admission of the accused petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that once the revision petition is dismissed by the revisional court, then the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable as it would amount to entertaining the second revision petition. Learned counsel for the respondent further vehemently submitted that one of the co-accused who also had same set of allegations against him has already been acquitted by the appellate court though he was convicted by the trial court. It is submitted that it is a case of the year 1992 and more than 16 years have passed. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the co-accused has been acquitted by the court below after trial and in appeal, therefore, no useful purpose can be served by holding trial against the respondent. ;