Registered owner not vicariously liable for liquor transportation under Bihar Excise Act without conscious possession or connivance.

The petitioner, Tushar Singh, sought the quashing of a cognizance order dated 02.11.2021 for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

On 15.09.2021, a vehicle registered in the petitioner's name was intercepted at a Bihar-UP border check-post

The vehicle was occupied only by the driver, Suresh Paswan, who was found in possession of three bottles of whiskey

The driver confessed the liquor was for his personal use and did not implicate the petitioner

The petitioner was neither present nor near the site of seizure, but was prosecuted solely due to his status as the registered owner of the vehicle

The court relied on the fundamental principle that criminal liability is personal and requires the concurrence of actus reus and mens rea unless a statute specifically provides for vicarious liability

It applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, identifying that inherent powers must be exercised when FIR allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence, citing State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal

The court interpreted Section 30(a) and Section 37 (Presumption of guilt) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, noting that the Act does not create absolute vicarious liability for vehicle owners

It further referenced the doctrine of "conscious possession" from Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 300A as highlighted in Sharad Navnath Gange v. State of Bihar

The Court observed that the petitioner was entirely absent from the scene and had no "conscious possession" or control over the illicit items

It reasoned that vicarious liability is an exception in criminal law and the 2016 Act—while providing for liability of family members or occupants in specific sections—contains no provision imputing the driver’s acts to a vehicle owner based solely on registration

The Court rejected the State’s reliance on the Section 37 presumption, clarifying that a presumption is an evidentiary tool for trial and cannot be used as a "bootstrapping device" to sustain cognizance where no prima facie material connecting the owner to the crime exists

Since the driver’s confession pointed to personal use and the quantity was small, no commercial nexus or connivance by the owner could be inferred

Consequently, the application was allowed, and the order of cognizance dated 02.11.2021 was quashed