Registered owner not liable for illicit liquor recovery absent conscious possession or control over the vehicle.

The petitioner sought to quash an order of cognizance dated 05.01.2022 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamui, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

The prosecution alleged that during a vehicle check for illicit liquor, a rider abandoned a Hero Honda motorcycle and fled; 15 litres of country-made liquor were subsequently recovered from the vehicle

The petitioner was implicated solely because he was the registered owner of the motorcycle

The petitioner contended that he had sold the vehicle through a sale letter and affidavit (Annexure-4 series) prior to the incident, thereby divesting himself of possession and control

1. Whether a registered owner can be held criminally liable for the recovery of illicit liquor from a vehicle when they have divested themselves of conscious possession and control of said vehicle

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court under the given circumstances

The Court primarily applied Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act regarding the prohibition of liquor

It relied heavily on the precedent established in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222, which dictates that "possession" in criminal jurisprudence must necessarily be "conscious possession," involving dominion and control coupled with knowledge of the illicit substance

The Court examined the petitioner’s claim of having sold the vehicle prior to the occurrence, substantiated by a sale letter and affidavit

Although the transfer did not strictly adhere to the Motor Vehicle Act's formal regulations, the evidence indicated the petitioner had relinquished physical possession and control

Applying the principles from Mohan Lal, the Court reasoned that criminal liability for the liquor cannot be fastened upon the petitioner because he was not apprehended at the spot, and the recovery was not made from his "conscious possession"

The Court found that the mere fact of registration, absent any material connecting the petitioner to the transportation of the liquor, was insufficient to sustain a criminal proceeding

The order of cognizance dated 05.01.2022 in Case No. 219C of 2020 (T.R. No. 566 of 2020) was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner, and the petition was allowed