Patna High Court
Manoj Jha @ Manoj Kumar JhaversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The order taking cognizance of the offences was vitiated by malicious intent and procedural irregularities and is therefore quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Jha, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a order dated 02.08.2016 in which the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of alleged offences under Sections 47(a) and 54 of the Bihar Excise Amendment Act, 2016. The petitioner argued that the recovery of 194.04 litres of foreign liquor was attributed to a hut he did not own, that the witnesses relied upon by the Excise Officer were hostile to him, and that a duplicate recovery of 119.975 litres was recorded at the same place against another person, indicating fabrication. He also highlighted an unexplained six‑day delay in filing the prosecution report. The Court found these circumstances demonstrated malicious intent by the Excise Officer and concluded that proceeding against the petitioner would amount to harassment and would not serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the order taking cognizance was set aside and the petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of offences under the Bihar Excise Amendment Act against the petitioner.
- Whether the prosecution complaint was tainted by malice, conflicting recoveries and procedural delay warranting quash under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the delay of six days in filing the prosecution report and the hostile nature of the witnesses affect the validity of the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 — s. 47(a), 54
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 482
- Malicious prosecution
- Bihar Excise Act
- Quash order
- Cognizance
- Procedural delay
- Hostile witnesses
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49921 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2016 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Vaishali
======================================================
Manoj Jha @ Manoj Kumar Jha, son of Yogeshwar Jha, Resident of Village-
Khilwat, P.S. Bidupur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Assistant Inspector, Excise, Sadar Circle, District Vaishali, Hajipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 16-02-2026 The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.08.2016 passed
in Complaint Case No. C2A 204 of 2016, arising out of P.R.No.-
12 dated 28.07.2016 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali
at Hajipur whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has
taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections
47(a) and 54 of Bihar Excise Amendment Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Excise Act’). against the petitioner.
2. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the cognizance of the alleged offences
against the petitioner has been taken on the basis of the
prosecution complaint filed by the Excise Official showing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49921 of 2016(6) dt.16-02-2026
2/4
recovery of 194.04 litres of foreign liquor from the alleged hut,
said to be in possession of the petitioner but the petitioner had
no connection with the said alleged hut from where alleged
recovery was shown to have been made and this fact is
supported by two circumstances, firstly in the prosecution
complaint, two persons namely, Sukhram Rajak and Md.
Rustam were shown as witnesses of the recovery with whom the
petitioner had inimical terms during the relevant period of time
and in this regard, specific statement has been made in
paragraph no. 9 of the petition and in support of this fact, a
copy of the proceeding initiated under Section 144 Cr. P.C. in
between the petitioner and Md. Idrish, Badri Baitha and others
has been filed and among the opposite parties in that case, Md.
Idrish is the father of Md. Rustam and Badri Baitha is the son
of Sukhram Baitha who were made witnesses of the seizure of
the alleged liquor in the present case. Secondly, on the same
date and at the same alleged place recovery of 119.975 litres of
foreign liquor was also shown to have been made by the same
Excise Inspector and the only difference is that the alleged
house from which that recovery was made was shown as
belonging to one namely, Bochai Miya but both the recoveries
at the same place showing from two different persons was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49921 of 2016(6) dt.16-02-2026
3/4
possible which shows fabrication of false story and this is
further supported by the fact that the prosecution report was
sent to the concerned court six days after the alleged recovery
without any explanation. It is further submitted that the
concerned Excise Officer simply mentioned in the prosecution
report that the alleged hut belonged to this petitioner as stated
by the witnesses but without recording their statements
submitted the prosecution report before the concerned court and
further, both the said persons had inimical terms with the
petitioner. It is lastly submitted that for the malicious
prosecution by way of criminal proceeding initiated by the
concerned Excise Inspector, the petitioner who is a practicing
Advocate has filed a complaint against him in which cognizance
of offences has also been taken against the said officer.
3. Though learned APP has opposed this petition but
he has not been able to rebut the aforesaid circumstances
pointed out by the petitioner's counsel.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and mainly
taking into account the facts that two recoveries of the liquor
were shown by the same Excise Inspector at the same place in
possession of two different persons and further the witnesses
upon the basis of whose statements the Excise Official relied
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49921 of 2016(6) dt.16-02-2026
4/4
had inimical terms with this petitioner and the learned APP has
not shown any reasonable reason of inordinate delay of six days
in sending the prosecution report to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate, in my opinion, these circumstances sufficiently
show the malicious intention of the concerned Excise Officer in
filing the prosecution complaint against the petitioner hence
subjecting the petitioner to trial for the alleged offences of the
Excise Act of which cognizance has been taken would be
complete harassment to him and would not serve the ends of
justice. As such, the order impugned taking cognizance of the
alleged offences and the subsequent criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner in the light of the said cognizance
order are hereby set aside/quashed and the instant petition
stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…