Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah in Arrah (Town) P.S. Case No.470 of 2014, whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 81(4) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘BVAT Act, 2005’) and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act against the petitioners.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, namely, Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, the Sales Tax Officer of Arrah Circle filed a written information on 12.12.2014 before the S.H.O. Arrah (Town), Police Station stating, inter alia, that on 10-11.12.2014, he made inspection of the office-cum-godown of M/s. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd. located at Sapna Cinema Road, Arrah. It has been further alleged that during the inspection by him, taxable goods were found being transported without road permits in violation of Section 61(1) of the BVAT Act and, thus, seized under Section 61(2) of the said Act, as the goods found being transported for helping evasion of tax to the purchasing dealers in collusion of transport agency and its employee punishable under Section 81(4) of the said BVAT Act. The alleged seized goods given to the transporter on his jimmanama for it’s safety. Hence, on the direction of higher authority, prayer was made by the informant for lodging police case for taking necessary legal action against the petitioner.

4. In the background of aforesaid factual allegation as raised by informant, an FIR was lodged as Arrah (Town) P.S. Case No.470 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 81(4) of the BVAT Act, 2005 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned cognizance order is bad in the eyes of law, as same was taken without any previous sanction as mandated through Section 82(2) of the BVAT Act, 2005. it is also submitted that as per seizure list, the goods which were recovered from the godown of petitioners, who is transporter, were categorized in three different categories for which, separately penalty for sum of Rs.2,800/- and secondly Rs.1,72,761=00 were paid and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was a lawful attempts in any manner to evade any payment or the tax as to attract any penal provision as mentioned under Section 81(4) of the BVAT Act, 2005.

6. Doubting the seizure list, learned counsel took shelter of proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the BVAT Act, where it is clearly mentioned that the seizure of goods under this sub-section can be prepared only by such officer, who is authorized for the purpose. It must be signed by the dealer also or the person Incharge of goods and minimum of two witnesses but, these mandatory provisions of law were not appears to follow while preparing seizure list in issue.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel that petitioner no.1 is the Director of M/s. Maa Annapurnna Transport Agency Ltd. (for short ‘the company’), which is a private limited company, an independent body as registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (as amended in 2013) to establish legal fiction of vicarious liability and on this score alone, the cognizance order qua petitioner no.1 is liable to be set aside/quashed. It is further pointed that petitioner no.2 is godown Incharge of the company, where consignment in issue were stored in transit for further transportation. It is apparent from seizure list that the consignment was the fire crackers and also of Hosiery items and, as such, the main ingredient as to attract a prima facie case under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, having a reasonable suspicion regarding possession of Explosive Substance for a lawful object, is not appearing convincing.

8. While concluding argument by taking she