O R D E R

(8.6.2021)

Accused/petitioner has filed this Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings of Crime No.593/2019, registered at Police Station Patan, District Jabalpur, for offence punishable under Section 34 of M.P.

Excise Act, 1915.

2 : Case of prosecution in short is that on 19.9.2019, Assistant Sub Inspector Tikaram Prajapati of Police Station Patan, received an information that some persons are transporting illicit liquor by a vehicle (Pick up) bearing registration No.MP-20-G/1858. Thereafter, Assistant Sub Inspector and other police officials reached on the spot, they tried to stop the said vehicle No. MP-20-20-G/1858, but driver of the said vehicle did not stop the said vehicle. After some time driver left the said vehicle on the road and ran away. The said vehicle was searched and 1674 bulk liters of country made liquor was found, thereafter liquor and vehicle were seized. It is found that co-accused Mohd. Taj @ Tajju is the registered owner of the aid vehicle. FIR was lodged. On 30.9.2019, co-accused Mohd. Taj @ Tajju was arrested, his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and he disclosed that other co-accused bought the alleged liquor from the present accused/petitioner.

3 : Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused/ petitioner is purely baseless. Present accused/petitioner is not registered owner of that vehicle. He was not present on the spot. Accused/petitioner is made as an accused upon the memorandum statement of co-accused. No other material is available against the accused/petitioner. Statement of co-accused has been recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is not admissible with regard to the present accused/petitioner. Apart from this, accused/petitioner is licensee of foreign liquor and country made liquor. Therefore, criminal prosecution against the accused/petitioner is also barred by Section 61 of M.P. Excise Act, so initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused/petitioner is contrary to law. Therefore, he prays for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings against the accused/petitioner.

4 : Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is sufficient material available against the accused/petitioner. So, it is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

5 : Heard both the parties and perused the record.

6 : It is evident from the record that 1674 bulk liters country made liquor was seized from the said vehicle bearing registration No.MP-20-G/1858. At that time vehicle was parked on the road. It is alleged by prosecution that driver and other person ran away from the spot. Thereafter, it is found that co-accused Mohd. Taj @ Tajju is registered owner of the said vehicle, he was arrested on 30.9.2019 and his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded. He disclosed that present accused/petitioner has liquor shop at Narsinghgarh, District Damoh. Other co-accused bought liquor from the shop of present accused/petitioner. Thereafter, other co-accused kept the alleged liquor in the said vehicle. When co- accused was transporting liquor, then vehicle was stopped by the police officials. So, it is evident that accused/petitioner is made as an accused upon the memorandum statement of co-accused Mohd. Taj @ Tajju.

7 : On analyzing the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is crystal clear that the evidence of memoranda given by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the police can be accepted so far as articles recovered from the accused and for the discovery of the items. Except the above circumstances, no other evidence has been collected in the present case, against the present petitioner. Hence, it is prima-facie indicated that the applicant has conspired or connived w