Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
United Breweries Limited, A registered company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.89, 157 of 2021
Decided on : 09-02-2022
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – Sections 30(a) and 35(e) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 272, 273, 465 and 420 – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Detection of ethyl alcohol in a non-alcoholic drink – For attracting penal provisions of Section 30(a), 30(g) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, substance must be an intoxicant or a liquor which could be served as an alcohol or as a substitute of alcohol which is capable of being used or consumed for getting intoxicated – Sample of products brewed in brewery of petitioner/company was tested for ethyl alcohol at Mysore which certified that it had zero percent alcohol – Methods prescribed by BIS specifies apparatus which is to be used and procedure for testing and also for calculation of content – There is nothing on record to indicate that such process was followed by Chemical Examiner of Excise Department of Government of Bihar at Patna and such report ought not to be treated as a final report for launching prosecution against anyone – Prosecution of petitioner in instant case is on a finding that some of samples which were seized contained more ethyl alcohol than tolerance limit – If articles, so seized, were not sold as intoxicants or could be consumed as intoxicants, it would not fall under category of liquor which is prohibited under the Act – A margin of error is inherent in such strict legislation – Facts of this case does not warrant prosecution of petitioner – FIR and all other prosecution emanating out of subject FIR quashed. (Paras 18, 21, 27, 28, 31 to 34)
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned AAG for the State.
2. The two writ petitions have been filed for quashing the entire prosecution emanating out of Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 265 of 2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 30(a) and 35(e) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and under Sections 272, 273, 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and restraining the respondents from taking any coercive step against the petitioner/company in pursuance of the aforementioned case.
3. On the basis of self-statement of one Dharam Pal, SHO of Madhubani Town Police Station recorded on 14.10.2020, the subject FIR was registered. He has alleged that on 12.10.2020 at about 04:00 P.M., a police officer by the name of Niranjan Kumar Singh brought 24 bottles, each measuring 300 mls. of Ultra non-alcoholic beverage of Kingfisher company which was seized by the police team from one Jiwach Kumar for which a Madhubani Town Station Diary No. 452 of 2020 dated 12.10.2020 was recorded.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid station diary entry, senior police officers were informed and the informant was told to have the liquid contained in those bottles examined by the Excise Department.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the sealed bottles were sent to the Superintendent of the Excise Department, Madhubani for testing but the same was returned as there was no provision for testing in the Excise Office at Madhubani and a request was made to have the samples tested by the Chemical Examiner of Excise Department of Patna. As requested, the sample was sent to the Chemical Inspector of the Excise Department on 13.10.2020. The test report was to be sent to the office of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Madhubani. The analysis report was received on 13.10.2020 which indicated that on examination, it was found that the sample liquid was a fermented liquor having ethyl alcohol content of 0.8% v/v which is in breach of the provisions contained under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016.
6. The person who was found to be in possession of the aforesaid bottles viz. Jiwach Kumar was interrogated who disclosed that those bottles belonged to one Shankar Santhalia of Madhubani. Jiwach Kumar used to work as a salesman with aforesaid Shankar Santhalia. On the asking of his employer, he had brought those bottles but was apprehended by the police. It was further disclosed that Shankar Santhalia purchased those bottles from M/s. Ma Enterprises, Madhubani whose proprietor is Mukesh Kumar (petitioner in Cr.WJC No. 157 of 2021).
7. Aforesaid Jiwach Kumar was then taken into custody and later Shankar Santhalia was also arrested.
8. It was, therefore, alleged that the accused persons as well as the manufacturing unit of United Breweries Limited at Naubatpur, Patna and its Management and Workforce had committed a cognizable offence under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid self-statement, Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 265 of 2020 dated 14.10.2020 was registered for the offences under Sections 30(a) and 35(e) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and under Sections 272, 273, 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. The petitioner (in Cr. WJC No. 89 of 2021) is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act which is engaged in the manufacture of nonalcoholic beers/drinks at Naubatpur in the district of Patna.
11. In the present case, the manufacturing unit is being represented by the General Works Manager, Brewery viz. Amrish Kumar Singh.
12. The petitioner in Cr.WJC No. 157 of 2021 is the proprietor of M/s. Ma Enterprises, Madhubani. He is said to have purchased the non-alcoholic drinks through GST invoice for its sale in the district of Madhubani. He has the license under the Food Safety Act for sale of such beverages.
13. The prosecution against the petitioner/company has been challeng
Quashing of FIR under IPC and Excise Act requires a prima facie case to avoid misuse of legal processes; non-existence of cheating and forgery is essential for quashing allegations.
At the quashing stage, the allegations in the FIR are to be accepted as true, and disputed questions of fact and defenses should be raised at an appropriate stage in the trial.
The Court emphasized the importance of accepting FIR allegations as true at the quashing stage and addressing disputed questions of fact during trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC and the need for a full trial to determine the genuineness of the mater....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
