Criminal Miscellaneous No.29585 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------ 1. Chandrahas Rai, son of Mahabir Rai, resident of Village- Khurhuria, P.S. Kateya, District-Gopalganj 2. Naga Rai, Son of Hoshil Rai, resident of Village- Khurhuria P.S. Kateya, District-Gopalganj ---------- Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --------------- For the petitioners: Sanjay Kumar Pandey no.5, Advocate For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. When the case was called out, Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey no.5, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has filed fresh Vakalatnama. Let it be kept on record. 2. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in sum and substance have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. in Kateya P.S. Case No.130 of 1999 which was registered for the offence under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. 3. Short fact of the case is that on a secret information regarding preparation and sale of unauthorized and illegal liquor, a raiding teem was constituted and on 8.9.1999 raid was conducted on three different places i.e. raid was firstly conducted in a brick-kiln of petitioner No.1 where huge quantity of illegal liquor was found. Thereafter raid was conducted in the brick-kiln of petitioner no.2 Naga Rai, where besides huge 2 quantity of illegal liquor, even manufacturing equipment was also found and thereafter third raid was conducted in the premises of one Dinesh Tiwary, who is not before this Court. It is not necessary to give detail regarding recovery from the premises of Dinesh Tiwary. In the raiding team, there were several members including officials of the Police, Excise Department and a Magistrate. After finding such huge quantity of illegal liquor , same were seized and seizure memos were prepared on the date of occurrence and on the basis of self-statement of the Officer Incharge of Kateya Police Station, an F.I.R. vide Kateya P.S. Case No.130 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. 4. Immediately after lodging of the F.I.R., two petitioners approached this Court by way of filing the present petition and this petition was admitted on 2.3.2000. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed. 5. At the very outset, while the case was taken up for hearing, on query made by this Court as to whether on the date of filing the petition, chargesheet was submitted in the case or not, it was replied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no chargesheet was submitted by the police on the date of filing of the petition. 6. Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5, learned counsel 3 appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the content of the F.I.R. is not believable. He further submits that it is not probable that such a respectable person like petitioners will commit such type of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to Annexures 2 and 3 to the petition, submits that on the seizure list, there were some cuttings and, as such, he submits that seizure list was not prepared at the place of occurrence, rather it was prepared at a different place. He further submits that search and seizure was conducted contrary to the provisions contained in Sections 69 and 85 of the Bihar Excise Act as well as Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to some affidavits, which were sworn by so called seizure witnesses, who had denied their presence at the time of seizure. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. 7. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. She submits that the present petition is fit to be rejected primarily on the ground that without pendency of any proceeding before the court below, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She further submits that the content of the F.I.R. categorically discloses commission of offence as mentioned in the F.I.R. It was 4 argued that it was not a malicious prosecution, but on definite information, a raiding team was constituted comprising of a Magistrate and several officials of the Customs Department and thereafter search was conducted and during the search, huge quantity of illegal liquor were seized and from the premises of petitioner no.2 even equipments for manufacturing liquor was also seized. In view of the facts and circumstances, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the present petition is fit to be rejected. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record, particularly Annexure-1, which is F.I.R. in Kateya P.S. Case No.130 of 1999. Perusal of the F.I.R. categorically makes it clear that offence under the Excise Act was committed by the accused persons. Moreover, the plea which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that search and seizure was not conducted in accordance with law or the affidavits , which were sworn by so called seizure witnesses, are not required to be looked into or noticed by this Court while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the F.I.R. Primarily in absence of pendency of any proceeding before the concerned court , it is difficult for this Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . If in such a case at the initial stage the court starts interfering, it would be difficult for the Investigating 5 Agency to investigate in single case. Moreover, time without number, it has been held that investigation of a case cannot be interfered with. In view of the specific allegation in the F.I.R. coupled with the facts that petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that this petition is required to be rejected. 9. Accordingly, I do not fine any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 10. In view of rejection of the present petition, the order of stay dated 2.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. Since the very initiation of investigation pursuant to the F.I.R. of Kateya P.S. Case No.130 of 1999 was stayed and the matter remained pending for more than 10 years, it is necessary to direct the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation forthwith and come to a logical end. 11. With the above observation and direction the petition stands rejected. 12. Let a copy of the order be sent to the court below as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj for necessary action. Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 12th May,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )