IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24329 of 2011 Raju Srivastava @ Dilip Kumar & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. ----------- 2 25.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The prayer is for quashing of the order dated 3.4.2010 by which cognizance of the offence under section 47 A of the Excise Act has been taken on the basis of prosecution report submitted by an A.S.I of Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an enquiry report dated 25.2.2011 issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Tirhut –cum- Saran Division, Muzaffarpur, wherein some suspicion has been raised regarding the conduct of the complainant of the present case. In my view, said report cannot be a basis to hold that the order taking cognizance is bad in the eye of law. Admittedly, cognizance has been taken on 3.4.2010 whereas the report on which the petitioners relies is dated 25.2.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon certain other documents in order to support his contention that the alleged recovered liquor was already sealed. The stock belonged to erstwhile licensee Mr.Subodh Kumar. Petitioner no.1 was the first representative of licensee Subodh Kumar. He submits that no business was being carried out when the alleged raid was conducted. In my view at the stage of taking cognizance of the 2 offence what the court has to see is as to whether on the basis of material produced before a prima facie case is made out or not. The documents being relied upon by the defence were neither on record nor the court below could have looked into it. The petitioners if so advised, may take all these points in their defence at appropriate stage. I find no merit in this petition. Hence, this application is dismissed. AnilKrSinha ( Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)