ORDER

1]Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2]This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the further consequential proceedings initiated against the present petitioners arising out of Crime No.356/2020 lodged at Police Station Noganwa, District Dhar under Sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

3]In brief, the facts of the case are that on 23/09/2020, a pick up vehicle baring registration No. MP09 GG 0684 was apprehended and it was found that it had various brands of liquor loaded in it, in all 426 bulk liters amounting to Rs.86,340/-. The vehicle was parked unattended on the road side and thus, crime No.356/2020 was registered by the police under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act. The case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid liquor belongs to M/s APJ Sales, a licensed shop, and it was being transported from the aforesaid shop to its another license shop at Bakhtawar Marg, Dhar. The transfer permit was also obtained by the said APJ Sales which has also been placed on record.

4]The petition has been filed mainly on the ground that even otherwise, the charge sheet in the present case is filed much after the period of limitation which is six months as per Section 61 of the M.P. Excise Act, as the date of incident is said to be 23/09/2020, whereas the charge sheet has been filed on 06/05/2021. The other objection raised by the petitioners is that the charge sheet has not been filed by the competent officer as provided under Section 61(1) (a) of the M.P. Excise Act and no permission has been sought by the Collector of Excise, as the charge sheet has been filed by the police Constable. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Manish Jatt Vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No.19768/2022 on 17/01/2023 in which also, the similar objections were raised.

5]A reply has also been filed by the respondent/State denying the averments made in the petition but it is absolutely silent in respect of alleged violation of Section 61 of the M.P. Excise Act as alleged by the petitioners. The respondents have also submitted that the liquor seized and the vehicle in which it was being transported are also to be confiscated and for which, intimation has already been sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Dhar.

6]Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Manish Jatt (supra). The relevant paras of the same read as under:-

“7]Heard. Having considered rival submissions, perusal of the charge-sheet, which is filed on record, and also the legal provisions of the M.P Excise Act, it is apparent that the charge-sheet has been filed by Sanjeev Kumar Sub Inspector of Police Station Daloda, whereas, Section 61 of the M.P. Excise Act clearly provides that no cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 34 for the contravention of any condition of license etc., Sections, 37, 38, 38-A and 39 shall be taken, except on a complaint or report of the Collector or an Excise Officer not below the rank of District Excise Officer as may be authorized by the Collector in this behalf. The said section reads as under:-

“[ 61. Limitation of prosecutions. — (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable— [(a) under Section 37, Section 38, Section 38 -A, Section 39, except on a complaint or report of the Collector or an Excise Officer not below the rank of District Excise officer as may be authorised by the Collector in this behalf;]

(b) under any other section of this Act other than Section 49 except on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer or Police Officer.]

(2)Except with the special sanction of the State Government no Judicial Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, or any rule or order thereunder, unless the prosecution is instituted within six months