HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8301/2022

Director Messers Hyphen SCS Private Limited, Pauneet Nanda S/

o G.K. Nanda Aged 35 Years R/o 637 Asian Games Vill. Complex

Andrewsganj South Delhi, Delhi Through His Power Of Attorney

Holder Ravinder Shekhawat S/o Satish Shekhawat Aged About

30 Years R/o Nahar (10-N) Rewari Dist. Rewari Haryana

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Baltej Singh Sandhu

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

Mr. D.S. Sodha

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

02/12/2022

1.

The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision Petition

No.295/2022 whereby the learned court below has dismissed the

revision petition and confirmed the order dated 20.10.2022

passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.3,

Bhilwara in connection with FIR No.48/2022-23 registered at

Police Station Bhilwara City, District Bhilwara for the offences

under Sections 19/54, 14/54 & 54A of Rajasthan Excise Act,

whereby dismissed the application under Section 457 Cr.P.C.

preferred by the petitioner for releasing Dyper (Many Poko Pants)

transported through the vehicle container bearing registration

(2 of 6)

[CRLMP-8301/2022]

No.HR38-V-2144.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

undisputed that the petitioner is a private limited company and

Dyper were to be transported under the contract with Unicharm

India Pvt. Ltd. The fact of package not being of excisable article is

also not disputed. These facts are not disputed by the parties

before the learned court below and the learned court below has

agreed to these propositions but has refused to grant any

indulgence on account of used the package in concealment of the

use of excisable material.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of

the Court towards Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950,

which reads as follows:

“69. What things are liable to confiscation. -

(1) Whenever an offence punishable under this Act has

been committed-

(a) every excisable article in respect of which such offence

has been committed;

(b) every still, utensil, implement or apparatus and all

materials by means of which such offence has been

committed;

(c) every excisable article lawfully imported, transported,

manufactured held in possession or sold alongwith or in

addition to any excisable article liable to confiscation under

Clause (a);

(d) every receptacle, package or covering in which any

article as aforesaid or any materials, still, utensil,

implement or apparatus is or are found together with the

other contents (if any) of such receptacle or package, and

(e) every animal, cart, vessel, raft or other conveyance

used in carrying such receptacles or package shall be liable

to confiscation:

[***deleted 3 May 2000]

(2) When in the trial of any offence punishable under this

Act the Magistrate decides that anything is liable to

(3 of 6)

[CRLMP-8301/2022]

confiscation under clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) he

may order confiscation:

Provided that in case of a thing other than an excisable

article he may, in lieu of ordering confiscation, give the

owner of the thing liable to be confiscated an option to pay

any such fine as the Magistrate think fit.

Provided further that, if the excisable articles seized in

connection with an offence under this Act are such as

cannot be legally sold in Rajasthan in the form they were

seized, such excisable articles may be ordered to be

confiscated by the District Excise Officer concerned,

whether or not prosecut on is instituted for the offence and

whether or not the offence is compounded; and

*”(2-A) Where t