Ramesh Soni v. State of Odisha) and the order dated
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2785 of 2024 Mukesh Prasad Jaiswal …. Petitioner Mr.Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior, Advocate being assisted by Mr. Saibrata Rath, Advocate State of Odisha …. Opp. Party -versus- Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER 02.04.2025
Legal Reasoning
1. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Saibrat Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle TATA truck bearing Registration No.OR-16 B 5255. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in 2(a)CC Case No.460 of Page 1 of 6
Decision
Order No. 02. 2024, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused for alleged violations under Sections 52(a)(i) and 62 of the Odisha Excise Act. The case arises from PR No.165/2024-25 of EI & EB Unit-II (ND), Sambalpur. 3. The allegation is that on 17.05.2024, the Inspector of Excise, along with his team, was performing patrolling duties at Ranibagicha when they found the vehicle parked at the premises of one Deokaran Prasad Jaiswal. Upon verifying the pass and permit issued by the Odisha State Beverages Corporation (OSBC), Sambalpur, it was found that the pass authorized transportation of beer. However, instead of delivering the beer to the licensed shop, the vehicle was found parked at one Deokaran Prasad Jaiswal's premises, which violated the permit rule, leading to the current case. 4. The petitioner now seeks to quash the proceedings, on the ground that the vehicle was transporting alcoholic beverages legally and with all requisite permits from OSBC, Sambalpur, to licensed shops, hence there was no illegality involved in the case. The petitioner contends that the transportation was carried out lawfully, in compliance with all requisite permits issued by OSBC, Sambalpur. It is submitted that the vehicle was temporarily parked at the said premises, and there was no intent to violate Page 2 of 6 any provisions of law. Additionally, the petitioner, being merely the owner of the vehicle, had no knowledge or role in the alleged deviation in the transportation. 5. It is contended before this this Court that the case of the present petitioner is directly covered by the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.2583 of 2024 (Ramesh Soni vs. State of Odisha) and the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.2584 of 2024 (Shiba Prasad Padhi vs. State of Odisha). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both Ramesh Soni and Shiba Prasad Padhi are the licensees whereas the present petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. In case of licensee, this court has already quashed the complaint finding that there was no violation of law caused by the petitioners therein. Therefore, the case of the present petitioner is directly covered by the above orders of this Court dated 10.03.2025. 6. In the connected matter as mentioned herein above the learned Additional Standing Counsel who was appearing for the state submitted that he had received instruction from the Inspector of Excise E.I. & E.B. Unit-II (N.D.) which read thus: liability of the “Sub:- Report regarding criminal accused Peter Kispatta, age-54 & status of the case vide PR No. 165/24-25 of E.I. & E.B. Unit-II ND, Sambalpur arising 2(a)cc No.460/24. Page 3 of 6 Ref:- Letter No.44934(2) Dated 05.08.2024 office of the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack. Hon’ble Sir, With due respect, I am submitting the facts and present status of the case vide the subject cited above as follows: That on dated 17.05.2024 basing on the information from the higher quarter, in presence of the Superintendent of Excise, Sundargarh. I along with my staff conducted a raid in an abandoned enclosed place at Adarsh Nagar of Sundargarh town. On search, I found one Bricks red color TATA Truck Bearing Regd. No. OR 16 B 5255 loaded with 280 cartoon of Duty paid genuine beer of different Brands which was parked in said campus and driver of the vehicles was present in the driver cabin. Being asked the driver produced two passes issued by OIC, OSBC Sambalpur i.e., 1- 146 cases of Beer of different brands vide Transport Pass No. OSBC issue (SAM) 2024-2025/3628, date of 16.05.2024 20:13 PM in favour of Ramesh Soni, Licensee of Durubaga IMFL OFF shop having route of current upto date transit 17.05.2024 at 06:00 PM. Jharsuguda with 134 cases of Beer of different brands vide Transport pass No. OSBC (SAM) 2024-2025/3630, date of issue 16.05.2024 20:16 PM in favour of Shib Prasad Padhi, Licensee of Ranibagicha Beer Parlour having route of transit Jharsuguda with current upto date 17.05.2024 at 06:00 PM. On my interrogation regarding illegal parking in said campus, he stated that, due to less hours in night and for safety reason he parked the vehicle in the said campus. But changing the route mentioned in pass, non- intimation to Excise Officials regarding detention of the vehicle in the said premises by taking the plea of late hour of night shows criminal liability of the driver, hence the entire stock of beer along with truck was seized by me in a good faith. Page 4 of 6 As the driver Peter Kispatta failed to justified the reason of illegal parking in that abandoned place. Primarily it is revealed that, in this case criminal liability is on the driver (Accused) as he has parked the vehicle at an unauthorized place by changing the route taking the advantage of validity pass. During my investigation I found that Shib Prasad Padhi, licensee of Ranibagicha Beer Parlour and Ramesh Soni, licensee of Durubaga IMFL OFF shop were ignorant about this matter till detection of this case and they have not any kind of involvement. Hence No criminal liability lies on them.” 7. In light of the investigation report, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar reasoning should also apply to the present petitioner. Just as the licensees were absolved of liability, the petitioner, being merely the vehicle owner, cannot be held criminally liable for the driver’s actions. 8. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State also submits that indeed the case of the present petitioner is directly covered by the aforementioned two cases and he further submits that the order of this Court as mentioned above passed on 10.03.2025 has attained finality. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced and the facts placed on record, it is evident that the prosecution case does not establish any criminal liability on the part of the petitioner. The deviation in Page 5 of 6 the permit rules was an act of the driver, for which the petitioner cannot be held liable. Furthermore, the findings of the Excise authorities themselves indicate that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to contravene any provisions of law. 10. In view of the above discussion and in line with the precedent set in CRLMC Nos. 2583 and 2584 of 2024, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition. Accordingly, 2(a)CC Case No.460 of 2024 in connection with PR No.165/2024-25, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 03-Apr-2025 20:10:27 Page 6 of 6