IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1041/2006 Rajpal Singh Vs. State of Raj.. 28.01.2008. HON'BLE MR;. JUISTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Praveen Balwada, for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order. Apart from the offence under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act the petitioner has also been chargesheeted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC as having conspired along with co accused in smuggling and transportation of the liquor. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had an authorised license for Vendor at the shop and a copy of the same is filed as Annexure-3 and therefore the petitioner cannot be made responsible for any acts which the other accused petitioners have committed. So far the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned the same requires no consideration at this stage. Suffice it to say that these are the facts that the petitioner may address in his defence before the learned trial court. The fact remains that the charge against the petitioner is also one of the conspiracy with the other co accused persons and that is substantiated from the material which was brought before the learned Magistrate. The fact that the petitioner is a licensed vendor submitted has no relevancy with the charge of conspiracy against the petitioner In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charges is dismissed. The dismissal of this petition however does not amount to any expression of opinion or findings on the merits of the case which shall be decided on the basis of the evidence produced at the trial. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS