Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Son of Shri Balaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2024CRLMP/1938/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition where the petitioner admitted the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction as per the Rajasthan Excise Act and sought liberty to approach the District Excise Officer for release of seized liquor.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to move an application before the concerned District Excise Officer.

Mukesh Kumar Son of Shri Balaram, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:25609]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1938/2024

¶4

Mukesh Kumar Son Of Shri Balaram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Kachra Kheri Fatehgarh, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Najeeb Anwar Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

29/05/2024

¶13

Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by petitioner, challenging the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pidawa, District Jhalawar, dismissing petitioner’s application under Section 451 CrPC to release the seized liquor in connection with FIR No.237/2023 registered for offences under Section 19/54, 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 at Police Station Raipur.

¶14

During course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner admits that in view of Section 69(2)(B) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, jurisdiction to make an order with regard to possession, delivery, disposal and release of any excisable article has been entrusted to the District Excise Officer and the jurisdiction of Court, Tribunal or other authority has been ousted, therefore, petitioner has a remedy to approach before the concerned District

[2024:RJ-JP:25609]

[CRLMP-1938/2024]

(2 of 2)

Excise Officer seeking to release the seized excisable article (liquor herein).

¶19

Since in the present case, petitioner moved an application under Section 451 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, which has been dismissed by the Magistrate for want of jurisdiction vide order impugned, therefore, counsel for petitioner does not press this petition on merits and seeks liberty to move appropriate application before the concerned District Excise Officer in view of Section 69(2)(B) of the Act of 1950.

¶20

In view of above, instant petition stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for.

¶21

It is hereby observed that the Judicial Magistrate has not passed the order impugned on merits, therefore, same would not come in way of petitioner for deciding his application to release the excisable article on supurdagi, if moved before the concerned District Excise Officer.

¶22

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶24

NITIN /11

Mukesh Kumar Son of Shri Balaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Son of Shri Balaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Arya S/O Sh Swatantra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Chauhan Son of Late Om Sharan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jahir Khan @ Jaiyan S/O Hanif @ Hasim Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanlal Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Madholal Khandelwal Vs Ramzan Qureshi S/O Shri Piru Qureshi B/C Muslim

Sajjan Singh S/O Shri Bux Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Puran Singh Vs State of Rajasthan