Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner, Laxman Lal Yadav is aggrieved by the fact that the investigation has been kept pending against him by the police. Therefore, he has prayed that FIR No.61/11-12, registered by Abkari Nirodhak Dal, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur City, dated 30.01.2012, should be quashed and set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2012, an FIR was registered by Gajanand Sharma, S.I., at Police Station Excise, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, wherein he had claimed that he had received a secret information that one Toyota, bearing Registration No.RJ-14/U-2788 would be transporting illicit liquor. Upon the basis of this information, the police decided to patrol the Delhi road near the Transport Nagar. They saw the said vehicle coming. However, when the driver and the co-passenger saw the police party standing, they suddenly turned the vehicle and evaded the police. Both the persons managed to run away. Therefore, the police contacted the informer, who told them that the persons who have escaped, are Ramjilal and Mahesh. When the vehicle was searched, a large number of illicit liquor was discovered. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that the registered owner of the said vehicle is the petitioner. Although, a charge-sheet has been filed against others, but the police has continued to keep the investigation pending against the present petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. R.B. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, the petitioner is neither named, nor any overt act has been assigned to the petitioner in the FIR.

Secondly, even prior to the alleged occurrence, on 14.10.2008 the petitioner had sold the vehicle, in question, to one Keshav Kumar Goyal. Mr. Goyal, too, had sold the vehicle to others. Thus, the vehicle in question had exchanged hands many a times. Therefore, the petitioner is not connected with the vehicle as he had sold it as far back as in the year 2008.

Thirdly, even amongst the subsequent purchasers, criminal cases have been registered against each other; the investigation in those FIRs' is still pending. Therefore, the petitioner happens to be an innocent person, who is being falsely implicated in the present case.

Fourthly, the word 'owner', contained in Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950(for short ' the Act of 1950'), would have to include the person to whom the vehicle has been sold. The said word cannot be restricted only to “the registered owner”. Since the vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner in 2008, obviously he does not continue to be “the owner” on the date of the incident. Hence, he is not covered by Section 54-A of the Act of 1950.

4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the FIR.

5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. For, the FIR deals with the incident when the vehicle was intercepted and when the driver and the co- passenger sitting in the car managed to flee the police. Thus, at the time of registration of the FIR, obviously the police did not know the name of the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, even if the petitioner has not been named, or an overt act has not been assigned to him in the FIR, the said fact is irrelevant to the controversy involved.

6. The issue before this Court is whether a registered owner falls within the ambit of Section 54-A of the Act of 1950 or not?

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that despite sale of the vehicle in 2008 to Mr. Keshav Kumar Goyal, and inspite of subsequent sale to others, the petitioner does continue to be “the registered owner” in the records maintained by the Regional Transport Office.

8. The word “owner” in relation to a motor vehicle, has been defined in sub-clause (30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short 'the Act of 1988'), which reads as under:-

“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-

(1) .

Click Here to Read the rest of this document