IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9073 of 2009 GOPAL MAHTO @ GULAB MAHTO, S/o late Jitan Dhangard Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Wine along with apparatus was found in a hut. Petitioner is refusing his having any hand in manufacturing of possession of the wine on the ground of non-furnishing of a copy of the seizure to him or his family members, but seizure list clearly mentions that Police proceeded to the hut after receiving information about manufacturing of wine by the petitioner that was found true also. Petitioner has been shown absconder from there (place of occurrence). So, no question arises about furnishing of seizure report to him and the quantity shown in the seizure list, does not justify any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh,J.)