Court dismisses challenge against seizure by Assistant Sub-Inspector and delay in charge-sheet filing, citing non-mandatory language in statute.
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court dismissed a petition challenging the cognizance taken against Akash Kumar under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The judgment, delivered by Justice Praveen Kumar on August 17, 2026, upheld the order of cognizance despite the petitioner's contentions regarding procedural violations in the search and seizure operations and a delay in filing the charge-sheet.
Akash Kumar was apprehended on February 27, 2018, at the Patna Junction railway station with six bottles of foreign liquor. The seizure, conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was contested by Kumar's counsel, who argued that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act mandates such actions to be performed only by officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector or higher. However, the court clarified that the language of Section 73(e) of the Act uses "may," indicating discretion rather than a mandatory requirement.
Further, Kumar's counsel argued that the seven-day delay in filing the charge-sheet beyond the statutory period should render the cognizance invalid. The court dismissed this argument, stating that such delays do not vitiate the trial or invalidate cognizance under the law. Inconsistencies in witness statements and procedural irregularities were deemed matters of defense that do not bar cognizance.
The court also referenced past judgments, including those in the cases of Marsingh Sahni and Ram Kishor Singh, which were cited by the petitioner. However, it noted that those cases related to vehicle release and did not express opinions on the merits of such procedural challenges.
The ruling emphasized that the recovery of illicit liquor from Akash Kumar's conscious possession constituted prima facie evidence sufficient to uphold the cognizance order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit, reinforcing the court's stance on the discretionary language of the statute and the non-impact of procedural delays on the legal proceedings.
Bottom Line :
Cognizance under Bihar Excise Amendment Act, 2016 - Seizure conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector - Use of the word "may" in Section 73(e) of the Act indicates discretion, not a mandatory requirement - Delay in filing charge sheet beyond the statutory period does not vitiate trial or make cognizance bad in law.
Statutory provision(s): Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 Section 73(e), Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment and Validation Act, 2020), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 100, Indian Penal Code Section 273, Bihar Excise Amendment Act Section 30(a)
Akash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2966519
