Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR as well as Criminal Case No.1898/2012 in respect of Crime No.39/12 registered at police Station, Rithorakalan, Distt. Morena, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that ASI Kamlesh Kumar was on patrolling duty. He saw a Maruti Car bearing registration No.J5FF/2751 coming from the side of National Highway. On being given signal to stop the car, the driver of the vehicle did not stop the car and tried to run away. The police chased the car. In front of Teekari the highway was closed. The car dashed from the soil and stopped, then driver of the vehicle fled away and another person who was sitting in the car also tried to run away, but he was caught hold by the police. On asking, he disclosed his name as Balveer @ Balle and the name of driver who ran away as Rishikesh @ Rishi. On being searched the car, 18 boxes of Masala country-made liquor and 5 boxes of plain country-made liquor were found for which there was no valid licence or permit. Thereafter, offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act was registered against Balveer @ Balle and Rishikesh @ Rishi. During investigation, driver Rishikesh in his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act disclosed that he and co-accused Balveer were carrying the liquor in the car for selling it in their village and the said liquor was purchased from the liquor shop of petitioner Rajveer Yadav and on this disclosure statement petitioner Rajveer Singh was made an accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR, even he was not present in the car at the time of seizure of the said liquor. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has been made accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that there is no evidence available on record against the petitioner except the confessional statement of the co-accused so as to implicate him in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the seized liquor or with the vehicle from which the liquor was seized. The cognizance taken by the police against the petitioner is absolutely illegal. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on single Bench decision of this Court in Ashok Nanda & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. : I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 300 and submits that FIR as well as criminal Case No.1898/12 deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1 opposed the petition as well as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the FIR as well as the documents filed by the prosecution.

6. From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that present petitioner was not named in the FIR, even he was not present on the spot at the time of seizure of car as well as liquor. Present petitioner has been implicated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Rishikesh @ Rishi under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that the liquor was purchased from the liquor shop of the petitioner. It is also clear that the name of present petitioner is not mentioned in the statement of Dharmendra Singh and Head Constable Rajpal Singh who were present at the time of alleged seizure.

7. Except the aforesaid disclosure statement, there is no other evidence available on record which may establish that illegal liquor was belonging to the petitioner. It is also not the case of the prosecution that vehicle in which the illegal liquor was being transported was that of the petitioner. So far as the evidence of memorandum given by the co- accused person under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is concerned, his con