The court affirmed that under special legislation, limitations for cognizance are determined by the charge-sheet date, not by the cognizance date.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5066/2025 Subhash S/o Shri Kashiram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Bas Sarayan Tehsil Taranagar District Churu ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary Mr. Jai Kishan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR REPORTABLE Order

11/07/2025 By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu in revision petition No.19/2024 and the order of cognizance 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar in criminal case No.59/2018 and further proceedings of criminal case No.59/2018 titled as ‘State of Rajasthan Vs Subhas & Anr.’ pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged from the charges of Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950.

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered on 08.12.2016 by one Kailash Chandra, ASI alleging inter alia that on

07.12.2016, during routine nakabandi at Changoi Chauraha, Taranagar, he signaled one commander Jeep to stop upon which the driver of the jeep accelerated the speed of the jeep. The police team whereupon chased the commander jeep and on noticing police personnel chasing the jeep, the driver of the jeep stopped it near Churu District Urban Cooperative Bank and tried to escape from the spot, however, the police personnel were able to apprehend the driver of the offending vehicle. The police personnel being in accordance with law searched the commander jeep (offending vehicle) and found huge quantity of liquor loaded therein. Upon asking about the license to carry the said liquor, the driver of the offending vehicle was unable to show any such permit/license. Thus, the FIR No.442/2016 was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 19/54 and 54-A of Excise Act, 1950 at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu.

3. Upon conclusion of investigation, the investigating agency filed a chargesheet against the petitioner and the co-accused- Ved Pal on 31.03.2017 upon which, the learned trial Court took cognizance for the above offences on 04.02.2019.

4. Learned counsel submitted that cognizance against the petitioner should not have been taken by the learned trial Court in view of Section 67 (2) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 as being barred by the time prescribed therein.

5. Learned counsel submitted that Section 67 (2) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 clearly prohibits a Magistrate from taking cognizance after the period of one year from the date of offence except in a case the State Government has granted a special permission. The instant case is not a case, where the State Government has sanctioned a challan after the expiry of the period of limitation. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(1) “Manga Ram & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan” reported in

2004 (1) R.Cr.D. 10 (Raj.).

(2) “ Gurucharan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ” reported in

2001 (3) WLC(Raj.) 575 .

(3) “ Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular ” in Criminal Appeal No.8