Full Judgment
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
1. This appeal arises on leave granted by this Court on November 24, 1978 under Section 371(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated June 19, 1978 of the Judicial Magistrare, First Class No. 2, Hanumangarh acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 54(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act').
2. The prosecution story in brief was that Rikhashpal Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police had gone to the Tube-well of Karnail Singh in village Talwara in connection with the investigation of case No. 141/75 on January 9, 1976. At about 3.15 p.m. he saw the accused coming from the opposite side. The prosecution case is that the accused seeing the police tried to runaway. He was however apprehended by the Assistant Sub-Inspector. On his personal search, 2 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from him. A case was registered at the Police Station, Tibi, District Sri Ganganagar Under Section 54 of the Act. Aftter investigation the accused was challaned in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. After trial, the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh by the judgment datad 19th June, 1978, acquitted the accused on the ground that Asstt. Sub-Inspector who conducted the investigation was not competent and as such the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal the State has filed the present appeal. The State filed on application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3), Cr. PC which was granted by this Court on November, 24, 1978.
3. I have heard learned Publice Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused. This case is more than 12 years old. Only two bottles of illicit liquor were found in possession of the accused and that was on January 9, 1976. The accused was arrested the same day and was granted bail on January 21, 1976. The bail bond is not on the record of the case and it is not known when he actually was released from custody, but this much is certain that he remained in custody atleast for 13 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think any useful purpose will be served if I set aside the acquittal now after about 12 years. To set aside the order of acquittal at this stage would far from advancing the cause of justice will thwart. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.