Absence of conscious possession or statutory vicarious liability necessitates quashing of prosecution under Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that based on an anonymous tip, the petitioner was seen "roaming around" a truck (Registration No. BR01-GA-7852) suspected of carrying illicit liquor near a petrol pump.

The petitioner was not arrested at the scene, and no physical recovery was made from his person.

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the Exclusive Excise Judge-II, Begusarai, took cognizance against the petitioner for an offense under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, via order dated 23.02.2023.

The petitioner moved the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the cognizance order, asserting he was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle and had no connection to the seized goods.

1. Whether the mere presence of an individual near a vehicle containing illicit liquor constitutes "conscious possession" under Section 30(a) of the Act.

2. Whether a person can be held vicariously liable for the recovery of liquor from a vehicle without statutory provisions for the same or evidence of ownership/control.

3. Whether the continuation of prosecution is sustainable when the allegations, even if accepted as true, fail to prima facie constitute an offense.

Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, which penalizes the possession, transport, or removal of liquor.

The legal standard of "conscious possession," which requires the prosecution to prove both knowledge and physical control over the contraband.

The 2018 Amendment Act removed the provisions for vicarious liability that existed in the 2016 version of the Act.

Principle that criminal proceedings should be quashed if the FIR allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offense.

The Court reasoned that "possession" necessitates a degree of control and knowledge that was entirely absent in this case, as the petitioner was not arrested from the vehicle and no documentary evidence linked him to the truck or its cargo.

The Investigating Officer failed to verify the truck's ownership or the origin of the consignment, relying solely on an anonymous tip.

The Court observed that since the 2018 Amendment Act abolished vicarious liability, the petitioner could not be held responsible for items found in a vehicle he did not own or operate simply by association.

The Court criticized the "inherent weakness" in Bihar's excise prosecutions regarding the failure to maintain a clear "chain of custody" for seized materials, making a future conviction impossible.

The Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the law. Consequently, the quashing application was allowed, and the order of cognizance dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Exclusive Excise Judge-II, Begusarai, was quashed as it pertained to the petitioner.