IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Vijay Kumar - Applicant
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. - Respondents
MCRC No. 12218 of 2018
Decided On : 11-05-2018
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. in crime no. 601/2017 registered at Police Station District Excise Office, Gwalior for offence under Section 34(1)(a),34(1)(b) and Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
3. It is not out of place to mention here, that the application for grant of anticipatory bail, filed by the applicant, has already been rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 13-3-2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4459 of 2018. However, inspite of the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, but the applicant is still absconding and has not surrendered.
4. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the authorized signatory of M/s Sakhi Rail Parcel Services and Sakhi Rail Parcel Services had booked consignment from transporting it from H. Nizamuddin Railway Station to Bhopal Railway Station. When train No. 12156 reached Gwalior Station on 11-3-2017, then it was found that the parcel coach was overloaded, therefore, 181 cartoons were unloaded. During unloading, the smell of liquor started coming out from one cartoon because of breaking of one bottle. Accordingly, all the unloaded cartoons were checked and it was found that 22 cartoons were carrying liquor bottles. It is submitted that although the transportation of liquor through Railway is prohibited as per the agreement executed between the Railways and Sakhi Rail Parcel Services, and if the liquor was being transported in contravention of the agreement, then as per clause 9.14 of the agreement, in case of false declaration of any commodity, the lease holder and owner of the goods shall be punishable under Section 163 of Indian Railway Act, 1989. The consignment was booked by Green Freight Carrier and since, the contents of the cartoons were not declared by Green Freight Carrier, therefore, no declaration was given by the Sakhi Rail Parcel Services with regard to the contents of the cartoons and the applicant was not aware of the fact that 22 cartoons, booked by Green Freight Carrier, were carrying liquor, which is a prohibited article as per the agreement. It is submitted that as the applicant was not aware of the contents of the cartoons, therefore, no mens rea can be attributed to the applicant, and thus, no offence under Section 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b) and Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act would be made out. It is further submitted that the prosecution of the applicant would be nothing, but would be contrary to the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that if the entire allegations are considered, then it would be clear that not a single step was taken in accordance with law. Whether the applicant was a part of the conspiracy or not and whether there was any mens rea on the part of the applicant or not are the highly disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided at this early stage and the submissions made by the Counsel for the applicant are his defence, which are required to be proved in the trial.
6. By referring to the copy of the charge sheet filed by the applicant along with this application, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the applicant has deliberately not filed the copy of the documents annexed along with the charge sheet. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that Sayaji Hotel Limited, Indore applied for importing 960 bottles of English wine from M/s Saksham Beverages Private Limited, Gurgaon (Haryana) and permission was sought from the Excise Department and accordingly, on the recommendation of Assistant Excise Commissioner, Indore, the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Moti Mahal, Gwalior issued a permit to import 960 bottles of English wine including 480 bottles of 355 ml of beer, 480 bottles of 330 ml of beer and 30 bottles of 750 ml of wine. Accordingly, M/s. Sak
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
Babul Choukhani Vs. King Emperor reported in AIR 1938 PC 130
CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512
Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan
Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others v. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596
Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Mukesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1
Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan
Mosiruddin Munshi Vs. Md. Siraj reported in AIR 2014 SC 3352
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Noor Mohd. Vs. Mohd. Yusuf Momin reported in (1970) 1 SCC 696
Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Koveuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2011) 12 SCC 437
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada reported in (1997) 2 SCC 397
State Vs. Nalini reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma reported in (1996) 7 SCC 705
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa
State of M.P. Vs. Rameshwar reported in (2009) 11 SCC 424
State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan reported in (1999) 2 SCC 651
State of H.P. v. Krishan Lal Pardhan reported in (1987) 2 SCC 17
State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547
Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728
Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947
Sushil Suri Vs. CBI reported in (2011) 5 SCC 708
State of A.P. Vs. Vengaveeti Nagaiah reported in AIR 2009 SC 2646
Tilly Gifford Vs. Michael Floyd Eshwar and another reported in (2018) 11 SCC 205
V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665
Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.