Patna High Court
ANEESH MANJHIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the conviction under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is set aside due to lack of reliable evidence and procedural defects.
Summary
The appellant, Aneesh Manjhi, was convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge Excise) in Jamui for violating Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and for public intoxication under Section 290 IPC, based on a breath‑analyzer reading and the testimony of police officials. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the trial record and noted that all six prosecution witnesses were police officers, there was no independent civilian witness, and the breath‑analyzer device itself was never produced or proved reliable. Moreover, no blood test was conducted and the search‑and‑seizure procedures were not followed, creating a serious doubt about the evidentiary foundation of the charge. The Court held that these procedural and evidentiary deficiencies precluded a lawful conviction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant’s acquittal and return of any fine paid.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is sustainable in the absence of an independent witness and a reliable breath‑analyzer report.
- Whether the procedural requirements for search, seizure, and testing under the Criminal Procedure Code were complied with.
- Whether the evidence adduced by police officials alone suffices to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 37(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 290
Subjects
- Prohibition Act
- Excise
- Intoxication
- Breath analyzer
- Evidentiary standards
- Acquittal
- Conviction quashed
- Procedural defect
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3340 of 2021
Arising out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2018 Thana- MALAYPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
Aneesh Manjhi S/o Garib Manjhi Resident of Village Kairi Bank Mushari,
Malaypur, P.S. Malaypur, Dist. Jamui.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satyanarayan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL @ ANSHUL RAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2026
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant for
setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Dis-
trict & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise, Jamui in Tr.
No. 217 of 2018 arising out of Malaypur P.S. Case No. 60 of
2018, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the ap-
pellant for the offence punishable under Section 37(b) of the Bi-
har Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and awarded sentence to a
fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on default of payment of fine the appel-
lant will have to suffer imprisonment for three months which
the appellant has already suffered prior to conviction shall be
adjusted against three months sentence.
2. The brief case of the prosecution, as per fardbeyan
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
2/6
of informant, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Singh, ASI, Malaypur
Police Station is that he lodged a written report stating therein
that on 20.08.2018 at about 14.30 o'clock when he along with
his patrolling party proceeded he got an information on mobile
that the appellant is in inebriated condition and creating nui-
sance in the locality. In order to verify his intoxicating condi-
tion, he was examined by breath analyzer machine and it was
found that he has consumed 0.19 Ml alcohol, thereafter, on the
basis of the written report the present case, i.e., Malaypur P.S.
Case No. 60 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Sec-
tion 290 of the IPC and 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act, 2016.
3. The learned trial court after perusal of materials col-
lected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant
took cognizance on 28.02.2019 under Section 290 IPC and Sec-
tion 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, thereafter,
the charges were framed on 04.05.2019 under Section 290 IPC
and Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to
which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has exam-
ined altogether six witnesses. They are:-(i) PW-1 Baliram Ya-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
3/6
dav (ii) PW-2 Alok Kumar (iii) PW-3 Chitranjan Kumar (iv)
P.W. 4 Ram Prakash Kumar (v) P.W. 5 Kamlesh Kumar
Singh (Informant) and (vi) P.W. 6 - Arun Rai. The defence
has also examined one witness on his behalf, i.e., DW-1 Gorki
Devi who is mother of the appellant.
5. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has
also relied upon following exhibits/documentary evidences,
which are:-
Sl. No. No. of exhibits Name of documents
exhibited
1. Exhibit-1 Signature of the infor-
mant on the breath
analysis report.
2. Exhibit-2 Signature of the infor-
mant on the written
application.
3. Exhibit-2/1 Signature of the SHO
Amit Kumar.
4. Exhibit-3 Handwriting and sig-
nature of formal FIR
then SHO Amit Ku-
mar.
5. Exhibit-4 Handwriting and sig-
natue of Arrest Memo
S.A.N.I. Kamlesh Ku-
mar Singh.
6. On the basis of evidences/circumstances as surfaced
during the trial, the learned trial court has examined the appel-
lant/accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, where he com-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
4/6
pletely denied the evidences surfaced during the trial and
claimed his complete innocence.
7. Taking note of the evidence as surfaced during the
trial and after considering the arguments as advanced by both
the parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant
and awarded sentence to a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on default of
payment of fine appellant will have to suffer imprisonment for
three months which the appellant has already suffered prior to
conviction shall be adjusted against three months sentence.
8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
9. I have considered the rival submissions canvassed
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused
the deposition of the witnesses examined during trial before
learned trial court.
10. It appears from perusal of record that altogether
six witnesses have been examined during trial, i.e., PW-1 Bali-
ram Yadav, PW-2 Alok Kumar, PW-3 Chitranjan Kumar
and P.W. 4 Ram Prakash Kumar were constables at Malaypur
Police Station and they have supported the prosecution case in
similar manner. P.W.-5 Kamlesh Kumar Singh, ASI who is the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
5/6
informant of the case and P.W-6 Arun Rai, SI of Malaypur Po-
lice Station have also supported the case of the prosecution.
DW-1 Gorki Devi has deposed that due to previous dispute with
one Shiv Ji Singh, his son has been implicated in the present
case.
11. In view of aforesaid discussions, it appears that
there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case
and all the witnesses are official witnesses and the breath ana-
lyzer machine has not been produced to substantiate the charge
under Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
and also there is nothing on record to suggest that whether
breath analyzer machine was capable to give correct report.
Again no blood test of accused seems to have been conducted
which is a major flaw. The procedure for search and seizure has
not been followed, therefore, it creates a serious doubt and thus
the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled
against him.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed.
13. The impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional
District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise, Jamui in
Tr. No. 217 of 2018 arising out of Malaypur P.S. Case No. 60 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3340 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
6/6
2018, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the ap-
pellant for the offence punishable under Section 37(b) of the Bi-
har Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and awarded sentence to a
fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on default of payment of fine the appel-
lant will have to suffer imprisonment for three months which
the appellant has already suffered prior to conviction shall be
adjusted against three months sentence, is hereby quashed and
set aside. Consequently, the above-named appellant is acquitted
from the charges levelled against him.
14. Since the appellant is on bail, he is being dis-
charged from his liabilities of bail bonds and sureties.
15. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned
to him immediately.
16. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records along with a copy of this judgment to the learned trial
court, forthwith.
(Ansul @ Anshul Raj, J)
niku/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
Checking your session…