In an application to quash an order rejecting a discharge petition, the court held there was no infirmity warranting interference and dismissed the application regarding illicit liquor seizure.
Application for quashing the order rejecting the discharge petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11279 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2017 Thana- GADHPURA District- Begusarai
======================================================
RAVINDRA KUMAR YADAV S/o Tarni Prasad Yadav R/o Vill- Bargama, P.S.- Hassanpur, Dist- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus The State of Bihar .. ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Binode Bariar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bindo Kumar ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2022
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
The present application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 02.02.2020, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Excise, Begusarai, by which the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge in connection with Gadhpura Police Station Case No. 18 of 2017.
The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that one tempo, owned by the petitioner, was intercepted, which was being driven by the driver, and a total quantity of 51.84 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the said tempo.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the said tempo and had given the tempo to the driver for plying. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11279 of 2021(2) dt.28-04-2022 2/2
petitioner was not aware about the illicit liquor being kept therein by the driver. He next submits that during course of investigation, no material has come against the petitioner, however, charge sheet was submitted against him and a petition for discharge, under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed, but the learned Special Judge has rejected the same in mechanical manner inasmuch as no material has come against the petitioner during the investigation. He further submits that Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is not applicable against the petitioner in the facts of the case.
I have perused the impugned order and from perusal of the same, it appears that the learned Special Judge has referred various paragraphs of the case diary and after being satisfied that sufficient material is available against the petitioner, has rejected the application for discharge.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravindra Kumar Yadav
The State of Bihar
Anil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
