IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40439 of 2010 Bhola Prasad @ Bhola Sao Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 12/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objection with regard to order dated 30.03.2010 passed by CJM, Buxar in connection with Complaint Case No. 2(0) of 2010 whereby and where-under the petitioner/accused has been summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 47(a) and 47(f) of Bihar Excise Act. The main crux of the submission is that there happens to be utter violation of Sections 74 as well as 82 of the Bihar Excise Act which has been controverted by the learned APP. So far application of Section 82 is concerned, the Excise Officer below the rank of Collector, O/C of Police Station after receiving information with regard to arrest, search, seizure in accordance with any provisions of the Excise Act has been burdened with an obligation to inform the Collector. The order of cognizance does not require condition precedent for compliance of Section 82 of the 2 Excise Act. With regard to Section 74, the same has to be guided by Section 69 where-under absolute power subject to rules framed by the State Government in accordance with Section 89, has been given to make search, seizure and arrest in case there happens to be violation of Excise Act. For the present, Section 74 is not putting any sort of hindrance in the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon AIR 1979 SC 711 to buttress his submission that non recording of the grounds/reasons/information with regard to illegal activity where-under indulging in an illegal act contravening any of the provision of Excise Act happens to be legal flaw. The aforesaid decision commands the final adjudication. The complaint petition so filed in proper proforma does not require to have this fact mentioned at an earliest nor Section 74 of the Act lays down it to be a condition precedent. It is a matter of fact which would be ascertained during the course of trial and so, I see no proper application of the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the present stage. Apart from this, whatever other ground the petitioner has, will be at liberty to raise at appropriate stage 3 and with the aforesaid finding the petition is found to be non maintainable and is accordingly, rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)