Saiyad Jiyajur Rahman vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Saiyad Jiyajur Rahman, filed an application seeking to quash a prosecution arising from Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 162/2023, including the order dated 08.06.2023 framing charges under Section 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The prosecution alleged that on April 20, 2023, a vehicle driven by the petitioner was stopped, and a search yielded 1.350 litres of illicit liquor, Indian currency of Rs. 36,50,000, foreign currency (16,300 BTN and 16,860 AED), a silver coin, a passport, a visa, and several ATM cards. The petitioner contended that no smuggled goods were found and that he is a businessman with legitimate businesses across India and the UAE, filing GST returns periodically. He explained the cash was for business expenses and the ATM cards belonged to him or his wife, and there was no element of fraud or cheating.
Held
The Court quashed the prosecution arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 162/2023, including the order dated 08.06.2023, by which charges were framed under Section 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's submission that no smuggled goods were found, and the recovered cash was for legitimate business purposes, with no element of fraud or cheating. The Court also noted the petitioner's argument that he was not dealing with liquor commercially or found inebriated, rendering the charge under Section 41 illegal. The recovered money was ordered to remain in the custody of the court and be released subject to the outcome of proceedings by the Income Tax Department. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the framing of charges under Section 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, is sustainable in law, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? The petitioner argued that the FIR's opening line mentioned smuggling inputs, but no smuggled goods were recovered. He asserted that he is a legitimate businessman with diverse business interests and that the recovered cash was for legitimate business expenses, including establishing a bakery. He further contended that the ATM cards belonged to him or his wife and that there was no element of fraud or cheating. Crucially, he argued that he was not dealing with liquor commercially, nor was he found inebriated, making the charge under Section 41 of the Act patently illegal. The State's arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment, but the prosecution case was based on the police's self-written statement and the seizure of items from the petitioner's vehicle.
Sections Cited
Section 30(a), Section 41
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 4 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The present application has been filed by the petitioner invoking inherent juri iction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the prosecution arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 162/2023 (Spl. Case No. 237/2023) including order dated 08.06.2023 by which charges have been framed under Section 30(a) and 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the self written statement of police wherein it is alleged that on 20th of April 2023 at about 6.45 p.m. at Faring Gola Check Post, the Endeavour vehicle bearing registration No. WB20BD-0333, coming from West Bengal 2/3 side was stopped by the informant team for checking, on a tip off. On search, about 1.350 litres of illicit Indian made foreign liquor, Indian Currency of Rs. 36,50,000/-, foreign currency in Bhutan of 16,300 BTN & Foreign currency in dirham of 16,860 AED, a sliver coin, passport, visa many dozens of ATM Cards were recovered from the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opening line of the FIR states that there were inputs regarding smuggling and from perusal of the FIR and seizure list it is evident that no smuggled goods were found in the vehicle or from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is a businessman having business in West Bengal, Odisha, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi, Bihar and has business also in UAE. The petitioner has business of hotels/resorts and garments mainly. The petitioner has his business in the name of Aram bagh Hotel and Resort Pvt. Ltd. and also files GST periodically. The monthly GST returns are paid by the business establishment of the petitioner between 15 lakhs to 20 lakhs. The petitioner was establishing a bakery at Alipur Dwar and there were sundry expenses which were to be met by the petitioner and thus cash collected from other businesses of the petitioner was to be utilized for meeting expenses in establishing the bakery and other miscellaneous expenses. The ATM cards belongs to the petitioner or his wife Habiba Begam. There is no element of fraud or cheating as the petitioner was not carrying ATM Cards issued to other persons. It is 3/3 not the case where the petitioner was dealing with liquor in commercial manner or was to sell the liquor or even consume liquor in Bihar or was found inebriated/drunk in the territory of Bihar,
hence framing of charge under Section 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act is patently illegal.
Senior Counsel for the Income Tax is present and she states that Rs. 37 lakhs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner which is in the custody of the court below as a case property.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that stay has been granted in this case, prosecution arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 162/2023 (Spl. Case No. 237/2023) including order dated 08.06.2023 is hereby quashed. The money shall remain in the custody of the court and will be released subject to the outcome of the proceedings of the Income Tax Department. The counsel for the petitioner is directed to keep on appearing in the court below and would not intentionally delay the proceedings.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
Siddharth Soni/- (Ansul, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.