NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

The primal question involved in both these cases, before the Full Bench, is whether the very entry, search and seizure conducted illegally and unauthorisedly, can form the basis for lodging an F.I.R. leading to prosecution and whether Court can quash the prosecution at the threshold on the ground of illegality in entry and consequential search and seizure, which form the basis for instituting the F.I.R. Equally in issue is the conflict of judgments between Division Bench in the case of Madhusudan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others, being order dated 25.11.1981 in Cr.W.J.C. No.212 of 1981, and in the case of Ramchandra Pansari Vs. The State of Bihar since reported in 1988 PLJR 623 and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Vs. The State of Bihar since reported in 1990 PLJR 416, which judgments are on the same issue and in conflict with the judgment in the case of Madhusudan Prasad (supra) holds that the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground of initial illegality in any entry, search and seizure, whereas the other two cases hold to the contrary.

2. I may, now, refer to the facts of the two cases as before the Full Bench. In Cr. Misc. No.11852