( 2025:JHHC:33603 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2207 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2207 of 2014 ------ 1. Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Paras Nath Singh R/o-Landu Basti, Ward No.22, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. 2. Nand Bihari Thakur S/o- Ram Anugrah Thakur, R/o-Vill-Kujapl, P.O. & P.S.-Gaya, Dist.-Gaya, Bihar. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl.P.P. ------ 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/3 Case No.07 of 2014 including the order dated 05.08.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 47(a) of Jharkhand Excise Act against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in contravention of the provisions of the Jharkhand Excise Act, was transporting 70 cartoons of Tuborg beer and 10 cartoons of Hunter beer and the same was seized by the Excise Officer on 04.08.2014. The Excise ( 2025:JHHC:33603 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2207 of 2014 Inspector submitted a prosecution report on 05.08.2014 and on the basis of the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 47(a) of Jharkhand Excise Act against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that initially the case was instituted against one accused namely Amar Deogam, who happens to be tempo driver. It is next submitted that the petitioners have genuine documents. It is next submitted that under Section 96 of the Excise Act, no cognizance in a case be taken unless the sanction of the state government has been obtained and prosecution is to be initiated within six months from the date of the act complained of, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that on being referred by the predecessor Judge in the roster, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2019 in this case has answered the reference by holding that on proper interpretation of Section 96 of the Excise Act, 1915, the phrase “any other person” employed in second part thereof means the Governments Officers or any other person who have been vested with by order of the State Government, the powers and duties assigned by or under the Excise Act and the time limit for taking cognizance as postulated in Section 96 of the 1915 Act shall not extend to any other category of accused person and in ( 2025:JHHC:33603 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2207 of 2014 view of the same categorical answer, the contention of the petitioners is that he is being prosecuted in violation of Section 96 of the Excise Act has no legs to stand. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the reference as already indicated above, it is crystal clear that the time limit for taking cognizance as postulated under Section 96 of the Jharkhand Excise Act shall not extend to the petitioners who are neither government officers nor have been vested by order of the State Government, the power or duties assigned by or under the Jharkhand Excise Act. So far as the contention of the petitioners that they are having documents for transportation of the seized liquor is concerned, the same is a defence, which the petitioners certainly can take during the trial of the case, but the same cannot be considered at this stage by this Court. 7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 05.08.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa basing upon the materials in the record has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 47(a) of Jharkhand Excise Act against the petitioners for transporting 80 cartoons ( 2025:JHHC:33603 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2207 of 2014 of beer, in contravention of the provisions of the Jharkhand Excise Act, 2000. 8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed. 9. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted, if any, is vacated. 10. Registry is directed to intimate vacation of the interim relief, the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of November, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 18/11/2025