Criminal Revision No.728/2003 13.07.2011 Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State. Heard on admission. The applicant/State has preferred this revision against the order dated 1.2.2003 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST, Prevention of Atrocities), Narsinghpur in criminal revision no.8/03 by which the respondent was discharged from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 34 & 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. Prosecution's case in short is that on 18.10.2002 at about 1:30 p.m. the respondent was found with a truck in the territory of Police Station Themi, Narsinghpur with a huge quantity of liquor. No licence or permit was found with the applicant, therefore, liquor as well as truck was seized by the concerned police. After due investigation, challan was filed by the police. Learned J.M.F.C. had framed the charges under Sections 34 & 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. In revision, learned A.S.J. (Special Judge), Narsinghpur found that the liquor was transported for Amarkantak enterprises, who was a licence holder contractor. The permit was issued by the Excise Department to transport that liquor and that permit was valid for 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on 18.10.2002, whereas aforesaid liquor was seized at about 1:30 p.m. within the period of that permit. The respondent was found to be a servant of the contractor in list of “Naukarnama” at serial No.38. The revisionary Court also opined that though it is mentioned that the respondent could not show the permit and “Noukarnama” before the police at the time of seizure. But it was further observed that such documents were there with the police before filing of challan, therefore, such contention cannot be accepted. Consequently, learned Special Judge, Narsinghpur vide order dated 1.2.2003 discharged the respondent from the charges levelled against him. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that this revision is preferred against the order passed by learned Special Judge, Narsinghpur because, according to the seizure memo, permit or “Naukarnama” was not available with the respondent and, therefore, crime has been committed. There is no allegation appended to the Excise Sub- Inspector that permit was issued at a subsequent stage or he has issued a list of servant of contractor after seizure of that matter. Without such allegation, it cannot be said that the Excise Department has helped the respondent, when a valid permit has been issued in favour of particular contractor and respondent was in the list of his servants then it was for the prosecution to prove that the respondent was not having any permit or list of servants at the time of seizure. If such documents were not taken from the respondent at the time of seizure then it was for the police to show as to when such documents were brought in the custody of the police, but no such explanation has been given with the challan. The revisionary Court has rightly held that the liquor was being transported with a valid permit and by competent person, therefore, no illegality or perversity has been done in the order dated 1.2.2003. Consequently, no interference can be made by this revision into the impugned order. Under such circumstances, the revision filed by the applicant/State is hereby dismissed at the motion stage. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj