
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against a liquor bottling unit for failing to affix holograms, ruling that the omission is a civil penalty under Section 43 of the Excise…
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against a liquor bottling unit for failing to affix holograms, ruling that the omission is a civil penalty under Section 43 of the Excise Act, not a criminal offence under Sections 39(1) and 39(2). Justice Sandeep Sharma imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on the proprietor of M/s Mars Bottlers. The FIR had alleged transport of bottles without licence, but the court found no evidence of unlawful production or sale. The Excise Department had earlier told the police the matter was a compoundable contravention, yet the police filed a charge sheet under the wrong provisions.

The police filed a charge sheet under penal sections even after the Excise Department told them this was just a compoundable violation. That wastes court time. The real question is why the Excise officer on duty, equally responsible for checking holograms, had his FIR quashed while the bottler was dragged through two years of prosecution. A ₹1 lakh penalty for the bottler is fair. But will the department now hold its own officers accountable, or will that be the end of it?
Source: livelaw.in
This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.