[ 2025:JHHC:26313] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1614 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1614 of 2024 Gajendra Singh, Aged about 54 years, Son of Late Bharat Singh, Resident of Qr. No. 1651, Street-38, Sector- IX-D, P.O. Sector-IX, P.S.: Harla, District: Bokaro. ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Adv. Mr. Jagat Kr. Soni, Adv. For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by learned CJM, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara P.S. case no. 59 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. case no. 411A of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, found the sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 413, 414, 420, 468, 471, 272, 120B of the IPC and under Section 47 (a) of the Excise Act; as cognizance of the said offences were earlier taken by the learned CJM, Jamtara on 19.09.2022. 3. The Brief fact of the case is that for the occurrence, which took place on 29.04.2017, on which day, the police found that several trucks were carrying adulterated liquor on the basis of forged documents by way of cheating and by using the forged documents as genuine. There is further allegation that the persons [ 2025:JHHC:26313] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1614 of 2024 involved in the said occurrence, were habitually dealing with the stolen properties and assisting in concealment of the stolen properties and were transporting intoxicant in criminal conspiracy with others. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Jamtara Police Station lodged a written report, on the basis of which, Jamatara P.S. case no. 59 of 2017 was registered on 30.04.2017. 4. After investigation of the case the police submitted the first charge sheet on 15.09.2022 but as the petitioner was absconding, hence the investigation of the case in respect of the petitioner continued. On the basis of the chargesheet submitted on 15.09.2022 vide order dated 19.09.2022, learned CJM, Jamtara took cognizance of the offences as already indicated above. After further investigation, as still the petitioner evaded his arrest and he could not be arrested, the police submitted a supplementary charge sheet dated 17.02.2023 and basing upon which, the said order dated 02.03.2023 was passed by learned CJM, Jamatara whereby the CJM, Jamatara observed that there is sufficient material in the record for trial against the petitioner and issued summon to the petitioner. 5. Relying upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Diensh Rai vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Jhar 404, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case, the occurrence took place on 30.06.2005. The prosecution report in respect of the offence though was dated 05.12.2005 but was placed before the learned CJM on 14.11.2006 i.e. beyond the period of six months after the date of the act complained of and as the only offences involved in that case where punishable under the penal provisions of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915; considering the facts of that case, as the prosecution report was filed beyond the period of six months, the co-ordinate Bench held that the cognizance taken on the basis of such report, being in violation of Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915; the same is vitiated in law and quashed the entire criminal proceeding. [ 2025:JHHC:26313] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1614 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand passed in CrMP no. 1040 of 2013 dated 15.07.2014 and submits that again in the facts of that case, involving only the offences punishable under penal provisions of the Excise Act, where the alleged occurrence took place on 07.03.2012 but the prosecution report was submitted on 18.10.2012 on the basis of which, cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on the same day i.e. on 18.10.2012, the co-ordinate Bench of this court considering the facts of that case, held that the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance are vitiated and quashed the same. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as in this case also, though the occurrence took place on 29.04.2017 but the cognizance having been taken beyond the period of six months i.e. on 19.09.2022, the same is bad in law and same is vitiated hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of the case of Dinesh Rai vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand (supra). It is next submitted by learned Addl. PP that unlike those cases, this case was instituted based on a written report basing upon which, Jamtara P.S. case no. 59 of 2017 was registered on the very next day of the occurrence and the FIR was placed before learned CJM on 01.05.2017, as has been crystal cleared from page 15 of the brief, which is the first page of the FIR, the copy of which, has been filed by the petitioner. So, this is the case, where the prosecution was instituted within two days of the occurrence i.e. well within the period of six months, hence, it is submitted that the prosecution is not hit by Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. It is next submitted by learned Addl.PP that during investigation of the case, all the offences in respect of [ 2025:JHHC:26313] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1614 of 2024 which, the chargesheet was submitted by the petitioner and the cognizance has been taken by learned CJM, was made out against the petitioner as well, which has been mentioned in details in the case diary, which was submitted along with the charge sheet by the I.O. of the case, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it will be proper to refer to Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, which reads as under:- Section 96- Limitation of Suits and Prosecutions:- No Civil Court shall try any suit against the Government in respect of anything done, or alleged to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, and, except with the previous sanction of the State Government, no Magistrate shall take cognizance of any charge made against any Excise Officer under this Act or any other law relating to the excise-revenue or made against any other person under this Act, unless the suit or prosecution is instituted within six months after the date of the act complained of. From plain reading of the Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 makes is abundantly clear that what is required by Section 96 is that the prosecution has to be instituted within six months after the date of the act complained of. As has rightly been observed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Rai vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), Section 96 of the Act, does not mean that the cognizance of the offence is to be taken within six months of the act complained of but it provides that the prosecution has to be instituted within six months form the date of the act complained of , as has been held by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of R.P.Sharma vs. the State of Bihar and Another reported in 1999 1 East CrC 140 (Pat) which judgment was referred to in both the case of Dinesh Rai vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the prosecution means criminal proceeding in general and the same includes the institution, [ 2025:JHHC:26313] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1614 of 2024 continuance and culmination of the proceeding in the final judgment. 10. In Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act 1915, the word ‘prosecution’ is followed by the ‘instituted’ and as such the word that has been used in the context is, institution of the criminal proceeding and the word ‘instituted’ means laying of the information or the complaint before the court. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, as has rightly been pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the FIR was placed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 01.05.2017 as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has made an endorsement “seen” and put his signature below the same i.e., within two days from the act complained of which took place on 29.04.2017; well within the period of six months. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prosecution was instituted beyond the period of six months after the date of the act complained of, therefore, the cognizance of the offence having been taken later on, certainly will not vitiate the criminal proceeding because the institution was within six months. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, the undisputed fact remains that police after due investigation of the case, found the allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offences, in respect of the cognizance has already been taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to be true and the details of the allegations against the petitioner and the materials in support of the same are in the case diary. It is a settled principle of law that this Court cannot conduct a mini trial in exercise of the power under section 482 of CrPC, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhil Sharda and Another reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any merit in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. [ 2025:JHHC:26313] 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1614 of 2024 14. Accordingly this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 18th August, 2025 Smita /AFR