JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

Present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2017, “Jai Dutt Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand and another" and the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Application No. 46 of 2017. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the Police Station-Pati, District Champawat to release the seized liquors of the applicant.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, for the year 2017-2018 (w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to 31.03.2018), applicant was granted licence no. 13 of the composite shop of liquor situated at Bhingrada, District Champawat. He was running business conveniently. On 15.10.2017, applicant submitted an application before the respondent no. 3-District Excise Officer, Champawat for permitting him to use the sub-godown of liquor in the building of one Mr. Raghuvar Singh Kunwar, as there was insufficient place in the shop of the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that, after informing the respondent no. 3, he was orally permitted to use the temporary sub-godown. On 07.11.2017, the application moved by the applicant was allowed by the respondent no. 3 and gave permission to the applicant to submit the challan of said sub-godown. Since, the applicant was granted permission and he was a valid license holder, he purchased the liquor and shifted it to the sub-godwon. Applicant deposited challan of Rs. 50,000/- and, thereafter, further licence was given to the applicant on 10.11.2017. In between 08.11.2017, 240 bottles, 480 half and 4263 quarters of English Wine and country liquor, having 372 bottles and 846 quarters, kept in the sub-godown of the applicant were seized by the police of Police Station Pati and the salesman was challaned under Section 60 of the Excise Act.

3. The applicant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat for release of liquor, which was seized by the police. Against the application of the applicant, the respondent no. 3 filed his reply, in which, he admitted that all the liquor seized by the police were not illegal and were duty paid material. Same were valid and shown in the transport pass also. It was also stated in the reply that the applicant is the licence holder of composite shop of liquor in Bhingrada. Respondent also admitted that application was filed by the applicant for temporary use of godown; but, permission could not be given due to non-depositing of requisite fee. Subsequently, the said fee was deposited. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Champawat, rejected the application of the applicant on 28.11.2017. Against the said order, applicant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat. Learned Sessions Judge, Champawat rejected the same. Against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, present criminal miscellaneous application has been preferred.

4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a licence holder of the composite shop of liquor. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the permission was granted to the applicant and he was asked to deposit the licence fee of Rs. 50,000/-; but, he did not deposit the same till 08.11.2017. When the goods were seized, then, subsequently, on the very next day, the fee was deposited by the applicant in the Office of District Excise Officer and he was granted licence on 10.11.2017.

5. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the reply given by the Office of Excise Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the application of the applicant for release of goods. In para 6 of the reply, he admitted that the licence was given by the Competent Officer for F.L.-2 and C.L.-2 and transit pass was also given. In para 6 of the said reply, it is stated that the liquor, which was seized, is not illegal and the liquor shown in