Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16413/2015allowed

Kamlesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-04Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16413 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2012 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya ====================================================== Kamlesh Yadav Son of Devnandan Yadav Resident of Village- Panchmahla Police station -Tekari, District-Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. S.Ehteshamuddin, App ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 15.12.2012 passed in Excise Case No.95 of 2012, T.R. No.3713 of 2012/2890 of 2014, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Section 47(a) & (f) of the Excise Act.

3. Challenge is on the ground that short prosecution report and seizure memo would reveal that the house of coaccused Bholi Sao was searched and recovery is from the house of Bholi Sao. There is no mention that the petitioner was also present there at the time of recovery nor there is any allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16413 of 2015 dt.04-07-2019 2/2 that the petitioner is family members of Bholi Sao. Further contention is that Annexure-4 at page-22 is the report of Assistant Commissioner Excise, Gaya, sent to the Court concerned stating therein that the involvement of the petitioners was not established in connection with the aforesaid case.

4. Considering the fact that there is no material against the petitioner to compel him to face trial. Hence, the whole criminal prosecution against the petitioner Kamlesh Yadav would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the same stands quashed.

5. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. (Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.07.2019 Transmission Date 06.07.2019