PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition seeking the following relief :- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 05.04.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnun District Nagaur may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be allowed and the truck No. MH-43U-4285 may kindly be ordered to be released to the petitioner on superdginama."?
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in prima-facie investigation, it has come that the excise articles were belonging to Adie Broswon Breweries Ltd. and the permit issued to carry the excise articles was found to be lawful. The relevant portion of report is reproduced as follows :- ...[VARNACULR TEXT UMITTED]... 2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the excise articles were being carried in the truck no. MH-43U-4285, then there is no reason for withholding the truck in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Indra Singh @ Inder Singh vs. State and Anr. (S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.123/2012) decided on 20.1.2012, which reads as follows :- "This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.37/11-12, registered at the Excise Police Station, Banswara, against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 14 and 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the subsequent proceedings thereupon. Assailing the FIR impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Truck No.HR 61-A 4866 registered in the name of the petitioner was searched and seized by the members of the Excise Department, Banswara on 31.05.2011 at 11.30 PM with indian made foreign liquor and pursuant to the search, the FIR No.37/11-12 has been registered at the Police Station, Excise Department, Banswara, for the aforesaid offences, which has been impugned by way of the present petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's truck was engaged by the licensed contractor M/s. Karni Wines, Mungul Mergoa Salecete Goa. for the purposes of transporting the liquor from Castle Distilleries, Chandigarh to Goa. Learned counsel states that the permit, which was issued by the Department of Excise, Government of Goa to the aforesaid contractor was issued on 30.05.2011 and was valid for 15 days, that is to say that the liquor had to be transported from Castle Distilleries, Chandigarh to the office of M/s. Karni Wines located at Goa and the said transportation was permissible within the aforesaid period of 15 days from 30.05.2011. Resultantly, when the seizure was made, the liquor was being plied under a valid permit and no prima facie offence whatsoever was being made out in relation to the seized liquor. Learned counsel has also placed on record the permit issued by the Government of Goa and the Form L-38, issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Excise at Chandigarh as well as the invoice for the sale of liquor, in which the number of the truck of the petitioner is mentioned. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the whole procedure of the seizure and the registration of the FIR is absolutely illegal. Learned counsel further submits that the route as prescribed in the permit includes within its ambits, the areas of Rajasthan mentioned therein as Kuchaman, Nagaur, Jodhpur, Beawar, Bhilwara, Chittorgarh and then to Ratlam at M.P. Learned counsel submits that for the purpose of going to Ratlam from Chittorgarh, it is permissible to go through Banswara and thus it can even not be said that the petitioner's truck was being plied on a route, which was not prescribed in the permit. Thus; he submits that the FIR impugned and all the subsequent proceedings resultant thereto deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.2417/ 2011, Sanjeev Kumar and Anr. Vs. State. decided on 19.12.2011 in support of his arguments. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the miscellaneous petition and submits that though the investigation of the case reveals that the permit, which is relied upon the petitioner is a genuine permit and was also valid when the seizure was made but as per the learned Public Prosecutor, when the seizure was made, the truck was being plied on a wrong route and thus, he submits that the FIR impugned is not fit to be quashed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused. the FIR impugned and the documents placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner, which are undisputed and admitted documents as stated by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the opinion of this Court, after having perused the permit for transportation of liquor, Which is an admitted document, it becomes apparent that the Department of Excise, Government of Goa had issued a permit on 30.05.2011, as per which, the liquor was to be plied from Chandigarh to Goa and the permit bears the Truck No.HR 61-A 4866 from which the seizure made on 31.05.2011. Resultantly, the irresistible conclusion, which can be deduced from aforesaid facts is that when the seizure was effected at Banswara, the truck was being plied under a valid permit and obviously the seizure effected by the Excise Officers was illegal. Even in the impugned FIR, it has been mentioned that the liquor was meant for sale in Goa. The permit, which is an admitted document, also shows that the liquor was to be taken to Goa. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding the route taken by the truck driver being wrong also cannot be accepted. A route for going from Chittorgarh to Ratlam can very well be taken from Banswara also. Thus, there was no infringement of the Excise Act being committed when the seizure proceedings were taken and the FIR was registered. Resultantly, this miscellaneous petition succeeds and is allowed. The FIR impugned. and all subsequent proceedings pursuance thereto including seizure of the truck and liquor are hereby quashed. The seized truck shall be returned back to the petitioner forthwith."?
(3.) Learned P.P. is not in a position to refute the above factual position that the seized excise articles were being carried under a valid permit and the same belonged to Adie Broswon Breweries Ltd.;