SUSHANTA KU. BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. L. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) THE present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order of cognizance dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandpur in G.R. Case No.112 of 2012 arising out of Ghasipura P.S. Case No. 46 of 2012 for commission of the alleged offence under Section 47(a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was in possession of six bottles of M.C. Dowell No.1 (IMFL) liquor each bottle containing 180 MI. He further asserts that the total quantum of liquor found in this possession was 1.08 Lt. and under the Act, the notification issued thereunder, possession of foreign liquor -wine and spirit (Foreign made or India made) limited to retail sale is 1.5 Bulk Litres as stipulated vide Notification No. 4663 -XL -99/96 dated 21.7.1969. He asserts that in terms of Section 19 of the Act, whereas Sob -section (1) thereof stipulates that no person (other than licensee) shall have in his possession any quantity of any intoxicant in excess of such quantity as the Board has, under Section 5, declared to be the limit of a retail sale, except under a permit granted by the Collector, then Sub -section (2) of the Act stipulates that this Sub -section (1) of the Act shall not apply to any foreign liquor which has been purchased by any person for his bona fide private consumption and not for sale or for use in the manufacture of any article for sale.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that as per the case diary produced, the petitioner's brother was a candidate for the local Panchayat election and the petitioner while campaigning for his brother had procured the liquor and was found distributing to local public. As a consequence of such act of distribution, caused immense problem in smooth conducting of the election. While the allegation is made that the petitioner had procured the liquor for distributing amongst various persons, yet the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. does not indicate the details or identity of the persons whom such alleged distribution was attempted.