Recovery of liquor from premises under an accused’s control supports prima facie prosecution under Section 47.

Following secret information that persons were consuming liquor in the petitioner’s mobile shop, police raided the premises, apprehended the petitioner and recovered 200 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in a 750 ml bottle.

The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 3 May 2017 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 47, 53(a), 54 and 68(g) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

He argued, among other things, that the recovery did not establish his liability and that the search did not comply with Section 100 CrPC.

Whether the material alleged—particularly recovery of liquor from the petitioner’s shop, which was under his use and control—made out a prima facie case under Section 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

Whether the petitioner’s challenges to the recovery, search procedure and sufficiency of evidence warranted quashing the cognizance order at this stage

Section 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 provides that a person who, having control or use of premises or other specified property, knowingly permits it to be used by another person to commit an offence under the Act is punishable in the same manner as if that person had committed the offence himself.

At the cognizance stage, the question is whether there is prima facie material to proceed; factual grounds of defence may be considered at trial.

The Court distinguished the cited decisions, which principally concerned absence of a breathalyser test or liquor recovered in circumstances not showing the petitioner’s control over it.

The Court found that the liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s shop, which was under his use and control, and that police had raided the shop on information that persons were consuming liquor there.

Those circumstances supplied prima facie material relevant to Section 47, notwithstanding the petitioner’s arguments about the small quantity recovered, the absence of tests establishing consumption, the seizure witnesses’ status as police personnel, and the alleged procedural defects.

The Court treated those objections as matters for trial and held the cited authorities distinguishable because they did not involve recovery from premises under the petitioner’s control.

The application to quash that order was dismissed.