POSSESSION OF EXPIRED BEER ALONE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 49(A) OF EXCISE ACT.

The applicant, a liquor licensee, sought anticipatory bail following the registration of an FIR (Crime No. 72/2023) at Police Station Behat, Gwalior.

Upon inspection of an English liquor shop located in a private residence, police seized 165.100 bulk liters of beer of various brands.

The seizure was based on the fact that the beer bottles had exceeded their six-month shelf life from the date of manufacture (February 2023), rendering them "expired" and allegedly unfit for human consumption under Section 49(A) of the Excise Act.

The applicant contended that the bottles were merely past their "best before" period, were not poisonous, and that police lacked jurisdiction to conduct the search, which should have been handled by Excise Department officials.

1. Whether the possession and alleged sale of beer past its "best before" date, without evidence of it being poisonous, prima facie constitutes an offence under Section 49(A) of the Excise Act.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

The court primarily considered Section 49(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, which pertains to the penalty for the consumption or sale of unfit or chemically contaminated liquor.

It also referenced Rule 9(झ) of the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, which mandates that beer labels state a six-month shelf life and prescribes the procedure for storing and reporting expired stock to the Excise Department.

Procedurally, the application was governed by Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding anticipatory bail.

The court evaluated the applicant's argument that the chemical report merely labelled the liquor "unfit for human consumption" due to the expiry date, rather than "poisonous" or "deleterious," which is a nuance central to the gravity of Section 49(A).

The court noted the defense's submission that failure to segregate expired stock is a license condition violation triable by the Excise Department, rather than a criminal matter for police intervention.

Applying these facts, the court found that since the material did not suggest the applicant was a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence, and given the specific nature of the allegations involving the "best before" period (only two months past expiry), the custodial interrogation was not necessitated.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The grant is subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation/trial, non-inducement of witnesses, and the requirement not to leave the country without prior permission.