JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.05.2023, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Churu in Cr. Revision Petition No. 27/2021 by which the learned Judge dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 08.04.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Case No. 190/2020, whereby the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 19 RAJ 54A of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT .

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.1 1.2019, SHO, PS Churu Sadar along with his team was on patrolling when they received a tip that a truck bearing No. RJ-lQ-GB-2121 was carrying illegal liquor. The police team set up “Nakabandi” on NH-52. At about 4:25 PM, the aforesaid truck was stopped and the driver and conductor disclosed their names as Rakesh and Suresh Kumar respectively. During search, the Police found some carton boxes of prohibited liquor along with 1990 plastic bags of rice, without any valid licence and permit. The police arrested both the driver and conductor of the truck.

3. Thereafter, Police registered a case and after due investigation, filed charge-sheet for offence under Section 19 /54A of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT against the present petitioner, being owner of the truck and for offence under Section 19 /54 of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT against the driver and conductor of the truck.

4. Learned trial court vide order dated 08.04.2021 framed the charges for, offence under Section 19 /54A of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT against the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Session Judge, Churu, which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2023.

5. Hence, this petition before this Court.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not having any knowledge about the illicit liquor being carried out in the truck which was recovered by the Police during search. The said truck was being driven by Rakesh and Surech Kumar was conductor. Police arrested both of them on the spot. Counsel submits that the Police has falsely implicated the present petitioner in this case being the owner of the truck. Further, at the time of alleged recovery, the petitioner was not present. Hence, no role whatsoever can be attributed to the petitioner in any manner and thus, no offence under Section 19 /54A of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT is made out against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the learned courts below have committed grave error in law and facts while framing charge against the present petitioner for offence under Section 19 /54A of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT . Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders framing charge against the petitioner may be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that learned trial court has rightly framed the charge for offence under Section 19 /54A of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT against the petitioner on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record and learned revisonal court has rightly upheld the same. Thus, there is no occasion to interfere in the concurrent findings of the courts below. In such circumstances, the petition may be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as material available on record.

9. Section 54A of RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT reads as under:

“54-A. Owner of animal, cart, vessel, raft, motor vehicle or any other means of conveyance deemed to be guilty in certain cases - Where any animal, cart, vessel, raft, motor vehicle or any other means