IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 5 of 2011. Date of Decision : 11.07.2011. Maan Chand ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H. P. & Anr. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shanti Swaroop, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner seeks the quashing of FIR, Annexure P2, annexed with this petition primarily on the allegations that he is a licencee entitled to stock and sell liquor. The case of the petitioner is that he has valid licence for the period 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. The copy of licence is placed on record as Annexure P2. 2. He pleads that no prosecution can be launched against him under Section 61(1) (14) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh for the reasons that licencee cannot be treated as a criminal. 3. There is no denying this fact but it is obvious that if the petitioner possesses a valid licence for the stocked liquor for the quantity as specified in the licence or in accordance with the conditions imposed upon the licencee by the conditions of auction as also provisions of the Punjab Excise Act and the Himachal Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Pradesh Liquor Licence Rules, it will be open to the petitioner to urge this point before the learned trial Court as a objection to urge that no jurisdiction lies with it to proceed with the case and learned trial Court cannot proceed further with the trial of the case. It will also open to the petitioner to lead evidence to show that prima facie on the basis of licence granted to him, there can be no prosecution. In such circumstances, the invoking of criminal justice system against the petitioner will be nothing but an abuse to the process of law. 4. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the trial court to ascertain as to whether a prima facie case herein has been made out against the petitioner or not on the allegations as raised in this petition. The interim order stands vacated. (Dev Darshan Sud), 11th May, 2011. Judge. (jai)