Mangal Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1353 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32820 of 2020
   Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-6 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
                                COMP. District- Banka
======================================================

Mangal Yadav, Aged about 30 years, Male, Son of Prakash Yadav, Resident of Village - Lattipur, PS- Bihpur, District - Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-03-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Banka Excise Complaint Case No. 6 of 2020 dated 18.01.2020,

instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that from his

white colour Titanium car, upon search, 156.600 litres of illicit

liquor was recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

had given on hire the vehicle to four persons who were caught on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32820 of 2020 dt.09-03-2021

the car and he is not responsible for what they were bringing on

the same. It was further submitted that the petitioner was neither at

the spot nor anything has been recovered from his possession and

he has no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that in view of there being

recovery from the vehicle of the petitioner, the present application

would not be maintainable due to bar of Section 76(2) of the Act

as an offence under the Act is made out.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds that since the undisputed position is that from the vehicle

owned by the petitioner, there is recovery of 156.600 litres of

illicit liquor, an offence is prima facie made under the Act and,

thus the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act would come into play and

the present application would not be maintainable.

8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed off as

not maintainable.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T