[2025:RJ-JP:45361] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2481/2017 Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, age about 43 years, R/o C-31, Kumawat Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 12/11/2025 1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR No.123/2017 registered at Police Station Vishwakarma, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Section 19/54 & 54(A) of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR itself reveals that the person, who was found in conscious possession of illicit liquor revealed that the vehicle in which the liquor was being carried was owned by him, however, only on account of the fact that in the Government record, the petitioner is still a registered owner of the vehicle, he has been implicated in view of Section 54(A) of the Act of 1950, whereas the vehicle was sold by the petitioner to Anil Soni vide agreement dated 25.08.2015 and Anil Soni further sold the vehicle to Rajesh Kumar Jangid and in turn Rajesh Kumar Jangid further sold to the vehicle [2025:RJ-JP:45361] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2481/2017] to Banti Sashi who further gave the vehicle in the possession of Shanker, who was driving the vehicle at the time of incident. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the instant petition and submitted that at this stage validity and veracity of the agreement placed on record by the petitioner to show that he has already sold the vehicle to other person cannot be examined for the purpose of quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., more particularly when under Section 54(A) of the Act of 1950, registered owner is liable for recovery of illicit liquor in his vehicle. 4. Heard and considered. 5. In the light of provisions of Section 54(A) of the Act of 1950, where the provision is specific and makes the registered owner of the vehicle liable for the offence, at this stage where mini trial is not permissible, the documents which are relevant for the defence of the petitioner cannot be examined. 6. Hence, in view of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1995 Supp 1 SCC 335, no case for interference is made out. 7. Consequently, criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /9