J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has assailed judgment and order dated 29.01.2026 of the Court of Sessions, whereby order dated 15.05.2025 of the learned trial magistrate was upheld, thereby holding the petitioner liable to be charged under Section 33/52 of the Delhi Excise Act.

2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, I do not find the petition worth even issuing notice.

3. At the outset, the issue of maintainability has been put to the learned counsel for petitioner. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.01.2026 were passed in the revision proceedings instituted by the present petitioner. The provision under Section 438(3) BNSS categorically prohibits filing of the second revision petition. It is trite that what is explicitly prohibited by law cannot be allowed backdoor entry invoking inherent powers, unless a case of gross injustice is brought before the High Court.

4. Broadly speaking, according to prosecution case, on the basis of secret information, the Head Constable and the accompanying constable on patrol duty intercepted a car smuggling illegal liquor. The car was found to be carrying three boxes of liquor distilled, blended and bottled by RSL Distilleries Private Ltd., Haryana. The forensic examination of the contents of those bottles revealed it to be containing ethyl alcohol. Accordingly, the FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. Driver of the intercepted car fled away. The investigating officer obtained the ownership particulars of the car from the transport authority and according to the same, it is the present petitioner who is the registered owner of the said car.

5. The learned trial magistrate, after examining the chargesheet followed by the supplementary chargesheet, framed charge against the petitioner under Section 33/52 Delhi Excise Act.

6. The said order of the learned trial magistrate was assailed by the petitioner before the Court of Sessions and the said order was upheld by way of the judgment and order impugned in the present petition.

7. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned Court of Sessions, after placing reliance on a number of judicial precedents on the parameters to be kept in mind while framing charge observed thus:

“22. Perusal of the record shows that present case revolves around registration of ownership of a Santo Car bearing no. DL3CAJ 6290, used in the commission of offence on 20.02.2022. In this regard, verification report of aforesaid vehicle from concerned RTO official is very crucial. Record reveals that as per reply received from DTO, South Zone, the aforesaid vehicle is registered in the name Shameem Ahmed, appellant/ accused herein. During the present proceedings in revision petition, fresh and detailed verification report was called by this Court. Perusal of the said verification report along-with certified copy received from concerned RTO offices shows that aforesaid Car from the period 31.01.2006 to 27.07.2006 was registered in the name of Manab Bhattacharjee. Further, from the period 28.07.2006 to 01.01.2018, it was registered in the name of Girish Kumar. Thereafter, till date, it is registered in the name of accused i.e. Shameem Ahmad. Further, the registration of aforesaid vehicle was valid till 30.01.2021 and thereafter, according to the RTO office, no extension was granted for the said vehicle. It means that as per record, till date, the appellant/ accused is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. The aforesaid fact on record, coupled with the case of prosecution prima facie indicates of committing a criminal offence and cannot be overlooked and gives rise to constitute a criminal offence. The contention for adjudication on pure question of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so, even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot b