Owner not liable for illicit liquor recovery from vehicle previously sold via sale letter and affidavit.

On a secret tip-off, police conducted vehicle checks for illicit liquor, during which an individual abandoned a Hero Honda motorcycle in the middle of the road and fled.

Upon search, 15 litres of country-made liquor were recovered from the vehicle.

The petitioner, being the registered owner of the motorcycle, was implicated and the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamui, took cognizance of the offence via order dated 05.01.2022.

The petitioner moved the High Court for quashing, asserting he had sold the vehicle via a sale letter and affidavit prior to the incident, thereby divesting himself of possession and control.

1. Whether the registered owner of a vehicle can be held criminally liable for the recovery of illicit liquor from said vehicle when they have purportedly divested themselves of its possession through a sale?

2. Whether the facts of the case satisfy the requirement of "conscious possession" necessary to sustain a prosecution under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act?

Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act concerning the possession and transportation of illicit liquor.

The principle established in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222, which dictates that "possession" in criminal jurisprudence must be "conscious possession," involving dominion, control, and knowledge of the illicit substance.

The Court examined the petitioner’s contention that although the vehicle transfer did not strictly adhere to the formal rules of the Motor Vehicle Act, the sale letter and buyer's affidavit demonstrated that the petitioner no longer held physical dominion or control over the motorcycle.

The Court observed that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, nor was the liquor recovered from his physical presence.

Applying the principle from Mohan Lal, the Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not in control of the vehicle at the time of the seizure, the legal requirement of "conscious possession" was not met.

Consequently, the petitioner cannot be held liable merely on the basis of being the registered owner when there is no material connecting him to the actual transportation of the liquor.

The Court found that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the order of cognizance dated 05.01.2022 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamui, in Case No. 219C of 2020 as against the petitioner.