Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Atma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2724/2021
Atma Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Khatik, Aged About 35 Years,
Kanechhan Kallan, P.s. Fuliya, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP
Mr. Udai Lal, ASI, P.S., Parsoli, District
Chittorgarh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
21/09/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an accident
has happened on 04.07.2019 at village Tejpur, Chittorgarh
whereon NH-27 Chittorgarh-Kota four-lane a vehicle 709/38
bearing No.RJ-08GA-4239 met with an accident and a person died
on the spot. The vehicle was filled with the excise articles (liquor)
and the dead person was identified as the driver of the vehicle and
an FIR No.83/2019 was lodged for the offence under Section
19/54 & 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and did not have any role,
whatsoever in the initial allegation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the only
place where the present petitioner was connected with the present
case is that when the owner of the vehicle Sanwariya Khatik and
(Downloaded on 23/09/2022 at 09:17:16 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2724/2021]
Ganpat Singh deposed in the investigation that the amount for the
excise article was given by Atma Ram.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
only allegation against the present petitioner is that he financed
illicit articles.
Learned Public Prosecutor and Investigating Officer present
in Court, are not in a position to submit anything from the case
diary, which could connect the present petitioner independently
with the excise articles in-question except for the statement of the
other co-accused.
Learned Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer have
not pointed out any independent corroboration what so ever
regarding the petitioner having financed illicit excise articles.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Mehtab Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. petition
No.1349/2008) decided on 14.02.2012, relevant portion of which
reads as follows:-
"Undisputedly, in this case, the petitioner has no
connection with either the premises from where the
recovery of the illicit liquor was made, nor the
petitioner is said to be present at the place of
occurrence when the recovery was made. A perusal of
the order of the Trial Court reveals that the charge
has been framed against the petitioner, simply on the
basis of the interrogational statement of the accused,
such a statement of the accused made to the police
officer is obviously hit by section 25 of the Evidence
Act and cannot be taken into consideration for any
purpose whatsoever. Resultantly, this Court is of the
opinion that the order of the learned Trial Court,
(Downloaded on 23/09/2022 at 09:17:16 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2724/2021]
whereby charges have been directed to be framed
against the petitioner. In this case, as affirmed by the
Revisional Court cannot be said to be a just and
proper order, but rather amounts to abuse of process
of the Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds. The
order dated 9.1.2007 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Gadi (Banswara) is hereby
quashed qua the petitioner and the learned Trial
Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case
as regards the accused Nilesh. Record of the Lower
Court is directed to be sent back forthwith.
The stay application stands disposed of. Petition
disposed of."
This Court ordinarily would not have interfered in the present
matter but looking into the fact that no role has been assigned to
the present petitioner in the FIR and during investigation no
independent corroboration of the present petitioner's role of
financing excise articles has been made out, so much so that any
kind of financial transaction or any independent witness
supporting the financial transaction is not on record. The aforesaid
precedent law partly applies in the present case.
In light of the aforesaid observations, the misc. petition is
allowed and FIR No.83/2019 P.S. Parsoli, District Chittorgarh, qua
the present petitioner is quashed and set aside.
The factual report produced by learned Public Prosecutor is
taken on record.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
101-Nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
