Criminal liability requires conscious possession; mere proximity or presence is insufficient.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-12-2025 Heard Ms. Bharti Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Shaheen Begum, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 20.03.2020 in connection with G.O. Case No.837 of 2017, whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned ADJ-II cum Special Judge, Nawada under Section 30 (a)

of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 .

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

11.08.2017 at 01:30 AM at Integrated Check Post, Rajouli, Nawada, the bus bearing Registration No. BR-06PA/6651 en route from Ranchi to Raxaul was stopped by the Inspector (Excise), Nawada, and other excise officials and the SAP force. Upon proper search, a bag containing 6.75 litres of illicit liquor was recovered in front of the seat of the petitioner in the said bus and was seized.

4. Ms. Bharti Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on the date of lodging of the excise case, the petitioner was coming from Ranchi and he was on the way to Varanasi, for which leave granted to the petitioner has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2. Learned counsel submitted that a team of Excise Department searched the bus bearing Registration No. BR-06PA/6651 and found 12 bottles of liquor in front seat of the petitioner and seizure list was prepared on which the petitioner who is Lance Naik in Indian Army was forced to put his signature merely on suspicion because the seized liquor was lying in front of the seat of the petitioner which don’t belong to him. Learned counsel submitted that no illicit liquor was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner as would appear from the prosecution report and the seizure list, therefore, if the petitioner is allowed to face criminal prosecution, the same will amount to abuse of process of the law. Learned counsel on above background of the facts and the law laid down in the case of State of Harayana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (AIR 1992 SC

604), seeks for quashing of the order taking cognizance.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that cognizance against the petitioner has been taken on the basis of the material available on record, supported by the witnesses and the evidence. He submitted that the learned ADJ- II cum Special Judge, Nawada has not committed any error in taking cognizance vide order dated 20.03.2020 passed in connection with G.O. Case No.837 of 2017.

6. Heard the parties.

7. For better appreciation of the prosecution case, provisions of Sections 30 (a) and 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. are reproduced hereinafter:

“ Section 30 . [ Penalty for unlawful manufacture, import, export, transport, possession, sale, purchase, distribution, etc. of any intoxicant or liquor. [Substituted by Bihar Act No. 8 of 2018, dated 30.7.2018.]

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation, order made, notification issued thereunder, or without a valid license, permit or pass issued under this Act, or in breach of any condition of any license, permit or pass renewed or authorisation granted thereunder (a)Manufactures, possesses, buys, sells, distributes, collects, stores, bottles, imports, exports, transports, removes or cultivates any intoxicant, liquor, hemp,”

56. [ Things liable for confiscation. [Substituted Bihar Act No. 8 of 2018, dated 30.7.2018.]

Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act.

(a) any intoxicant or liquor unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, sold, stored, possesse