Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained for a procedural lapse, such as the non-production of a transit slip, when the underlying transaction is supported by valid statutory documentation and lacks evidence of criminal intent or illegal diversion of goods.

JUDGMENT

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of FIR No.184 dated 18.08.2024, registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (as amended by Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) at Police Station Saha, District Ambala, along-with final report dated 28.04.2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.08.2024, during naka-bandi at Saha Chowk, two vehicles bearing Nos. PB-65-BF- 3899 and PB-65-BE-5599 were apprehended and taken into police possession on the basis of secret information. The said vehicles were found loaded with liquor, i.e, 1200 cases of Royal Player Premium Whisky (180 ml) and 500 cases of Tribe Traditional Blended Whisky (90 ml), respectively, which were being transported from Himachal Pradesh to Delhi. On the next day, i.e, 18.08.2024, the Excise Inspector, Ambala, upon verification, checked the documents as well as the liquor stock and found that the same matched with the government records, including L-34 manual pass and permits, and the stock was found to be correct. However, it was observed that the transit slip was not produced at the spot, which was stated to be mandatory as per the applicable excise policy. On the basis of the afore-said allegations and the application submitted by the Excise Inspector, FIR No.184 dated 18.08.2024 under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (as amended by Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) was registered at Police Station Saha, District Ambala, and the investigation was set into motion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and the present FIR has been wrongly registered despite the fact that the consignment of liquor was being transported with all valid and requisite documents, including L-34 manual pass and permits, and the same were duly verified by the Excise Inspector, who found the stock to be correct and in accordance with the government record. It is further contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests merely on the alleged non-production of the transit slip at the spot, which is at best a procedural lapse under Clause 12.13 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25 and does not constitute any offence under Section 61 of the Act. It is argued that such executive instructions do not have the force of a penal statute and cannot give rise to criminal liability, particularly when all other statutory requirements stood complied with. Learned counsel further submits that there was no intention (mens rea) on the part of the petitioner to illegally transport, sell or misuse the liquor, and the consignment was lawfully dispatched from Himachal Pradesh to Delhi, with no allegation of diversion, sale or storage within the State of Haryana. It is also argued that no loss of revenue has been caused to the State of Haryana, as the goods were only in transit and not meant for sale within the State. Lastly, it is contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of law, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out, the petitioner has clean antecedents, has not been declared a proclaimed offender, and the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has opposed the present petition. However, it is fairly conceded that the entire case against the petitioner primarily rests upon the alleged non-production of the transit slip at the spot. It is submitted that as per the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25 and the directions issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the transit slip was mandatory, and its absence constituted a