1. This petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 20.01.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Revision No. 66/2015, whereby, the order dated 21.8.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in Criminal Case No.1017/2015 has been affirmed. The petitioners have further prayed that they may be discharged from the offences leveled against them.

2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to filing of this present petition are that on 20.6.2015 the police got information that the truck bearing registration No.UP93/E-9147 was carrying liquor without having any valid license/ permission. As per prosecution case, when the truck was searched, it was found that there were total 11988 bottles of silver whiskey amounting to approximately Rs.38 lacs which was being transported, therefore, the case under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (herein after referred to as ‘Excise Act’) was registered against the petitioners. While registering the case, the petitioners had informed the concerned police officer that they have a valid licence/permission issued by the office of Excise Department, Gwalior for transporting the liquor. Instead of making enquiry with regard to validity and genuineness of the license from the District Excise Officer, the police authorities without conducting any investigation filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners under section 34(2) of Excise Act. After completion of due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners under section 34(2) of Excise Act. Again, at the time of framing of charges, petitioners produced the license/permission, but the same was not considered.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in criminal case No.1017/2015, the petitioners preferred a criminal revision bearing No.66/2015. Vide order dated 20.1.2016 (Annexure P-1), the revision was allowed and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was affirmed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Shrivastava submitted that the petitioners have been deliberately implicated in the matter inspite of the fact that they were transporting liquor under a valid licence, the FIR was lodged. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Charges were also framed under section 34 (2) of the Excise Act. The police is not having jurisdiction to register the case under section 34(2) of Excise Act. The revisional Court without going through the provisions of law and without appreciating the facts and the mischief played by the police authorities, confirmed the order framing charges.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the evidence which they produced (A valid Licence issued by the Excise Department) is sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusation leveled by the prosecution, without the necessity of recording evidence. In the factual backdrop, the proceedings needs to be quashed and the petitioners are liable to be discharged from the offences leveled against them.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court. He further contended that if the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioners are discharged, it would have far reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution/complainant’s case without allowing them to lead evidence, therefore, this Court may not like to exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before commencement of the actual trial.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. This Court before entertaining the petition had