The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 against a man accused of transporting illicit liquor, holding that mere presence near a vehicle allegedly carrying contraband cannot establish “conscious possession” in the absence of credible evidence linking him to either the vehicle or the seized liquor.
Justice Ansul allowed a petition challenging the cognizance order passed by the Exclusive Excise Judge-II, Begusarai. The prosecution case was based on information that the petitioner was associated with a truck allegedly transporting illicit liquor. However, the only material against him was an anonymous disclosure by local persons that he had been seen roaming near the vehicle parked at a petrol pump.
The Court noted that the petitioner was neither arrested from the spot nor shown to be the owner or driver of the vehicle. Further, the investigating agency failed to collect any material establishing his connection with the truck, its contents, or the transportation of liquor. The Court also observed that the police did not verify the ownership of the vehicle, ascertain who loaded the consignment, or trace the vehicle’s origin.
Emphasising that Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires proof of conscious possession, the Court held that possession necessarily involves both knowledge and control over the contraband. In the absence of such evidence, the prosecution could not be sustained merely on the basis of an anonymous tip-off.
The Court further observed that the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise law had removed the provision relating to vicarious liability that existed under the 2016 enactment. Consequently, criminal liability could not be imputed on presumptions or indirect association with a vehicle allegedly carrying liquor.
In a significant observation, the High Court also remarked that excise prosecutions in Bihar suffer from an ‘inherent weakness’ because neither the Act nor the rules provide a mechanism for maintaining the chain of custody of seized material. The Court noted that such deficiencies would make it difficult for the prosecution to withstand challenges regarding the integrity of seized evidence during trial.
Holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose any offence against the petitioner and that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process, the Court quashed the cognizance order and all proceedings against him.
