HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5852 / 2016

Lalit Suwalka S/o Shri Laxmi Narain Suwalka, aged About 52

Years, resident of 30, Kast Kala Marg, Udaipur.

----Accused-Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through P.P. Excise Department

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Shri P.S. Shukla with

Shri Sharad Purohit

For Respondent(s) : Shri V.S. Godara, PP

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

Order

31/01/2018

1.

The present petition has been preferred by accused

petitioner with the prayer to quash proceedings of Cr. Case

No.30/2011 pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Srimadhopur, Sikar for the offence punishable

u/s 18/54(E) read with section 54-D, 64 and 68 of the Rajasthan

Excise Act, 1950, (for short “the Act of 1950”) arising out of FIR

No.12/2010-11.

2.

The facts in brief relevant for consideration of this

petition, are that FIR was registered on 10.01.2011 by Abkari

Circle, Srimadhopur alleging inter alia that M/s H.S.B. Agro

Industries, Reengus diverted 40000 BL ENA (Extra Natural

Alcohol) on the basis of forged documents and has caused loss

to the Government revenue which is punishable under the

Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

(2 of 5)

[CRLMP-5852/2016]

3.

After investigation, chargesheet was filed against 5

persons; namely, Sanjay Singh, Pawan, Bhawani Singh, Mahal

Chand and Durga Prasad. Later on, a supplementary chargesheet

was filed against 6 persons, including the present petitioner Lalit

Suwalka on 17.06.2015. Learned trial court took cognizance

thereupon on 17.06.2015.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is not a director in-charge or responsible to the affairs

of the company, therefore he is not directly involved in the

matter. He has been roped in only in the capacity of a Director.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Rajasthan

Excise Act does not propound for vicarious liability of the Act of

the company upon the Directors and since the petitioner is

neither in-charge of the affairs of the company nor is

responsible to the affairs of the company, the proceedings

against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

5.

In support, learned counsel placed reliance on Maksud

Saiyed v/s State of Gujarat and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 668,

R. Kalyani v/s Janak C. Mehta and Others, (2009) 1 SCC

516, S.K. Alagh v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,

(2008) 5 SCC 662, Sunil Bharti Mittal v/s Central Bureau of

Investigation and one other, Criminal Appeal No.34/2015 and

two others, decided on 9.1.2015 by Apex Court and Virendra

Kumar v/s State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.5565/2014, decided by this Court on 25.05.2015.

6.

Learned counsel further submitted that cognizance

could not be taken by the trial court in view of section 67(2) of

(3 of 5)

[CRLMP-5852/2016]

the Act of 1950 being barred by time prescribed therein. The

cognizance against the petitioner has been taken on

17.06.2015 for the alleged offences committed on or before

10.01.2011 which is beyond the period of one year prescribed

for taking cognizance u/s 67(2) of the Act.

7.

In support, learned counsel placed reliance on the

following decisions :

1. Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan,

2001(3) WLC 575,

2. Shanti Lal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan,

2003(1) R.Cr.D.397 (Raj.),

3. Lal Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan,

2004(2) WLC 182,

4.

Manga Ram & Anr. vs. State of

Rajasthan, 2004(1) R.Cr.D. 10 (Raj.) and

5.

Gulam Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan,

2006(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 21.

8.

Learned counsel further contended that at the time of

taking