ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking setting aside of the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Excise) Patna in Special Case No. 729 of 2017, arising out of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016 under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 47(A) and 53(B) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 (in short ‘Excise Act’). By the impugned order, the learned court has directed the investigating agency to reinvestigate the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Patliputra P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016 was registered on the basis of a news published in various daily newspapers on 26.04.2016. The news were published on the basis of a sting operation said to have been conducted by a private channel wherein a Member of Legislative Assembly, namely Vinay Varma (petitioner), was shown saying that he has brands of various liquors, further that he was shown giving offer to the team carrying out sting operation for drinking. It is alleged that when he was asked by the sting team, he stated that how can he throw when he has. It is further alleged that the petitioner said to have claimed that he has many brands in his village like Black Label, Black Dog. He allegedly invited the team for drinking at his village saying that if you want to drink then I can offer you. The petitioner allegedly said that liquor is available both at Patna and Narkatiaganj. It is further stated in the FIR that based on the said report, the officials of the Excise Department, Patna carried out a raid at the house of the petitioner on 26.04.2016 in between 8:00 am to 11:00 am but nothing was recovered from the premises. The informant alleged that the foreign liquors appeared to have been removed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the FIR itself it is clear that the Excise Department officials raided the house of the petitioner in between 8:00 am to 11:00 am on 26.04.2016 without any authority of law. There was no order of a competent court allowing the Excise Department officials to conduct raid in the house of the petitioner. Despite this, when the raid was conducted no liquor was recovered, therefore no offence under the relevant provisions of the IPC or the Excise Act could be even prima-facie made out.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the informant acted on the basis of the so-called sting operation, without ascertaining the veracity of the contents of the sting operation. It is stated that the petitioner and his family are supporters of Congress Party from the very beginning and the petitioner was Mukhiya of Shikarpur Panchayat, West Champaran for about twenty two years and was Block Pramukh of Narkatiaganj Block, West Champaran from 2001 to 2006. In 2015, he contested from Narkatiaganj Assembly Constituency on Congress ticket and was declared elected. He was a teetotaler, a vegetarian and has never touched any sort of liquor throughout his life.

6. Learned counsel further submits that Sections 47(A) and 53(B) of the Excise Act would not at all be attracted in the nature of the allegations made in the FIR. It is stated that the Police after a threadbare investigation submitted a closure report vide Final Report No. 316 of 2016 dated 19.09.2016 under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) The investigating agency reached to a conclusion that there were lack of evidence to proceed further with the case.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that on submission of the closure report, the learned Special Judge (Excise), Patna issued notice to the informant. Till this stage, there was no difficulty as before acceptance of the closure report, a notice to the informant was required. The learned Special Judge could have differed with the police report but in this case the learned Special Judge did not differ with the police report, there was no protest petition also b