Ruptured chain of custody of seized liquor vitiates prosecution under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The petitioner, an employee of the North East Railway, was implicated in Pothia PS Case No. 232 of 2022 following a police search on September 25, 2022.

Based on secret information, the police searched a motorcycle (BR-37AA-4705) near a railway track, which the petitioner claimed to own.

The search yielded 15 bottles (5.625 liters) of foreign liquor.

The petitioner alleged he was falsely implicated after refusing an illegal demand made by the informant during the petitioner's official railway duties.

Following the submission of a charge sheet, the learned Additional Sessions Judge II-cum-Special Judge (Excise) I, Kishanganj, took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act via an order dated May 4, 2023.

The petitioner moved the High Court to quash this order.

1. Whether the prosecution is mandated to establish a continuous and documented chain of custody for seized liquor despite the absence of a detailed rule-based regime in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act analogous to the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the failure to demonstrate a tamper-proof chain of custody and the lack of independent records regarding sampling render the evidentiary foundation for cognizance inherently defective.

The court primarily applied Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

It further relied on the well-settled principles of evidence law and jurisprudence concerning the "chain of custody" in excisable and narcotics cases, emphasizing that prosecution must establish an unbroken, documented transfer of contraband from seizure to chemical examination and court production.

The court noted that while the Bihar Act lacks an explicit provision equivalent to Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the duty to maintain evidentiary integrity flows from the statutory requirement of safe custody and the Indian Evidence Act.

The court reasoned that the integrity of a conviction involving contraband depends entirely on a reliable chemical report and a verified chain of custody.

In the present case, the record revealed significant gaps: the prosecution could not account for who held the liquor at each stage, the manner of storage, how samples were drawn, or the integrity of the seals at critical junctures.

Furthermore, there was no independent record or witness-memo for the sampling procedure, and the subsequent destruction of the liquor by order of the Collector precluded any effective cross-examination regarding the identity of the article.

The court held that once the chain of custody is ruptured, the narrative of seizure alone cannot serve as a reliable basis for prosecution.

To allow the case to proceed on such an "inherently defective process" would violate the principles of a fair trial.

It held that the prosecution's failure to establish a tamper-proof and continuous chain of custody for the seized foreign liquor meant that the evidentiary foundation for the charges under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act had crumbled, making continued prosecution a perpetuation of injustice.