IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57464 of 2025 LALIT Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Harshvardhan Pathak - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Tarun Pagare -GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

ORDER

1] Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashment of the FIR in connection with Crime No.380/2024 registered at police Station Alirajpur District Alirajpur under section 34(2) and 46 of the M.P. Excise Act and the subsequent proceedings.

3] This petition has been filed only on the ground that the petitioner happens to be the Sales Man/Manager of a liquor shop, and 12,000 bulk liters of liquor has been seized from a truck bearing RJ-09-GC-6690, which was being transported on the prescribed route under a valid licence. Although, it is alleged that at the time of the transportation, the driver was not having the valid licence.

4] Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of the licence dated 5.7.2024 (Annexure A-3), and it is submitted that the liquor was being transported through its authorised route, and only allegation is that it should have been transported on or before 9.30 PM on 5.7.2024, whereas the vehicle has been seized at around 1.30 am on 6/7/2024.

5] Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 25/10/2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, District Alirajpur, whereby, a penalty of Rs.10,000/-, has been imposed on the present petitioner on account of violation of licence condition under section 48-A of the M.P. Excise Act.

6] Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to provisions of Section 48-A and Section 61 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act of 1915). It is submitted that the cognizance in the present case cannot be taken, as the complaint has not been filed by the Collector or an Excise Officer as prescribed under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act of 1915. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR in respect of the present petitioner and the subsequent proceedings be quashed.

7] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. However, counsel could not rebut the factum of the order of penalty imposed on the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate, District Alirajpur, on account of violation of the licence condition.

8] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9] So far as section 48(A) and section 61 of the Act of 1915 are concerned, the same reads as under:-

“48-A. Special provision for the imposition of penalty by the Excise Commissioner or Collector.— Notwithstanding the limit of penalty of Rupees ten thousand prescribed under sub -section (1) of Section 48, the Excise Commissioner or Collector in the event of any breach of contravention of the rules or conditions of licence, may impose penalty to the extent provided in such rules or conditions of licence under the provisions of this Act.

Section 61. Limitation of Prosecution (1) -No_court shall take cognizance of _an offence punishable-

(a) under [Section 34 for the contravention of any condition of a licence, permit or pass granted under this Act, 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