SOBHAG MAL JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 21, 1980 passed by the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar, acquiting the accused of the offence under section 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that the complaint filed by the Excise Inspector in this case was not maintainable as he could not be considered to be an Excise Officer within the meaning of section 67 of the Act. THE learned Magistrate has relied on the judgment of this Court given in Bhagwana v. State of Rajasthan (1 ). . , The view taken by the learned Magistrate does not, now, hold good as Bhagwana's case stands reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Laxman Singh (2) wherein it was held that the Excise Inspectors are Excise Officers within the meaning of section 3 (7) of the Act, and are therefore, competent to make a complaint or report in respect of the offence enumerated in section 67 (1) (a) of the Act. The view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot, therefore, be sustained. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not feel persuaded to up-set the order of acquittal. The case is more than eleven years' old. It was on August 30,1978 that one pot, containing wash, was recovered from the house of the accused. It would not advance the cause of justice and would rather the wart it if the case is remanded back to the Magistrate. In Food Inspector Calicut Corporation v. Cheru Kotkil Gopaian (3) and State of Kerla vs. Kalluseri Mohammed (4) the Supreme Court laid down the correct position of law but did not set aside the order of acquittal passed in their favour. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. .;