The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the time limitations prescribed under the Punjab Excise Act and Section 468 CrPC for taking cognizance of the offence.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.12 dated 25.01.2016, registered under Sections 61, 1 and 14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) registered at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts in a nutshell, as per the FIR are that on 25.01.2016, the police party received secret information, that the petitioners brought liquor for a low price from outside and sold the same at higher rates in City Raman and nearby places in a white-coloured car, Mahindra Xylo, bearing no. PB-11-BA-6682. A naka was laid down, where they were allegedly caught with 25 boxes of country liquor “Mota Khasa Santra” and 10 boxes of “Punjab Special XXX-Rum”.

3. The first leg of contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners would be that a bar under Section 75(2) of the Act exists, whereby the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Act, without the special sanction of the State Government, unless the prosecution is instituted within a year from the date of occurrence. In the instant matter, FIR was registered under Section 61 of the Act on 25.01.2016, and the challan came to be presented before the trial Court on 03.10.2020, thus is liable to be quashed. The second submission would be that even otherwise, as per Section 468 CrPC, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 61 of the Act is 3 years, thus, the present proceedings would still be barred. In support of his arguments, reliance has been placed on Pritam Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 1981 CriLJ 545; Jagminder Singh @ Pappu vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-36005 of 2014 decided on 23.09.2016; Ranjit Singh @ Jeet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM-M-5549 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016 and Jasvir Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-12706-2019 decided on 19.05.2022.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit, that as per the affidavit dated 17.05.2023 filed by Buta Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, despite having sent the samples on 29.02.2016, it was only on 04.07.2017 that the report of analysis was received, whereafter permission under Section 75 of the Act was sought from the Commissioner, Faridkot Division on 06.02.2020, which was received vide letter dated 24.09.2020, and thereafter the challan was presented on 03.10.2020, thus the delay caused is purely procedural. Furthermore, petitioner No.1 is also involved in 4 more cases under Excise Act, 2 NDPS and 1 IPC.

5. Heard learned Counsel on either side.

6. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions involved in the present case, which read thus:

Section 75 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914:

“75. Cognizance of offences-

(1) No Judicial Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence punishable,-

(a) under Section 61 or Section 66 except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an excise officer; or

(b) under Section 62, Section 63, Section 63-A, Section 64, Section 65, Section 68, or

Section 70, except on the complaint or report of the Collector or an excise officer authorized by him in that behalf:

[Provided that no police officer or constable discharging the functions of an excise officer, shall file a complaint or make the report, set out in clause (a) in regard to the offences of collection, possession and sale of liquor, committed on the premises of a licensed vend, unless authorised to do so, by the Financial Commissioner.

(2) Except with the special sanction of the State Government no Judicial Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, unless the prosecution is instituted within a year after the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”

Section 468 Cr.PC:

“468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation-

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no