Case Background
The petition arose from operations of a private sugar and distillery company at Majhaulia in West Champaran, Bihar. The company held a licence and No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for production of ethanol and its transport to oil companies.
The company transported ethanol through a transporter, M/s Indian Tankers Pvt. Ltd. Tankers were to move under GPS monitoring and electronic or digital locks, with electronic locks supplied by another agency, M/s M.S.D. Telemematrix Pvt. Ltd., according to the petitioners.
On 25.04.2020, an Excise team from East Champaran intercepted a tanker near an old hotel on NH‑28. The team allegedly found that one of the seals of the tanker’s chambers was broken and ethanol was being siphoned into a pick‑up van. Containers filled with ethanol and empty containers were recovered, and several chambers of the tanker were found without seal and without proper connection to the digital lock.
Based on this, on 26.04.2020, Excise P.S. Case No. 195 of 2020 was lodged against the tanker owner, driver, pick‑up owner and others, under Sections 30(a)(f), 31, 32, 36, 38, 41(1) and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
On the same date, another First Information Report, Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020, was registered against the petitioners (the distillery company and its Chief General Manager) and others. This second FIR invoked Sections 284, 285, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 30(a) and 31 of the Excise Act. It was based on inspection of the company’s warehouse at Majhaulia, where several alleged violations of licence conditions and departmental circulars were found.
Later, on 27.04.2020, the Chief General Manager of the company himself lodged Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 232 of 2020 against the transporter M/s Indian Tankers Pvt. Ltd. and its driver, for alleged illegal siphoning of ethanol and causing loss of Rs. 11,66,287.50/‑. That third FIR is not under challenge in this writ; the focus here is only on Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020.
The company and its officer approached the Patna High Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1281 of 2021 seeking quashing of Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020, calling it an unlawful “second FIR” for the same incident.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core question before the Patna High Court was whether Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 was an impermissible second FIR on the same incident, or whether it related to a distinct offence and could therefore proceed.
The petitioners argued that only one FIR can exist for one occurrence. They said the first FIR, Excise P.S. Case No. 195 of 2020, already covered the incident of illegal siphoning of ethanol on 25.04.2020, and that they could simply be added as accused in that investigation if evidence emerged against them.
According to them, Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 related to the same transaction and facts, and therefore amounted to an improvement or extension of the first FIR. They claimed that permitting a second FIR in relation to the same occurrence would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
They also contended that the entire transaction of production and transportation of ethanol was strictly governed by the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 as a special enactment. On this basis, they argued that the second FIR could not validly include offences under the Indian Penal Code along with the Excise Act.
The petitioners further submitted that allegations in the second FIR about tanker not being properly locked or sealed and cameras not working were misplaced. They pointed to a notification (Annexure‑2) to claim that sealing of tankers was the duty of the Excise Department, not the company. In their view, the warehouse inspection and the second FIR flowed directly from the same illegal siphoning incident that had triggered the first FIR; hence, it was all part of a single transaction.
In support of their stand, the petitioners relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including:
Krishna Lal Chawla vs. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 435; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 6 SCC 348; Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254; and T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. They emphasised passages where the Supreme Court held that a second FIR in respect of the same incident or transaction (other than a cross‑case) is not permissible and offends Article 21.
The State, represented by the Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader‑7, opposed the petition. The State submitted that the two FIRs arose from different causes of action, had different informants from different districts, involved different sets of accused, and dealt with different kinds of offences.
According to the State, the first FIR was confined to those caught in the act of siphoning ethanol from a tanker—namely, the tanker owner, the tanker driver, and the owner of the pick‑up van. The second FIR, however, was based on an inspection of the company’s warehouse on 25.04.2020, which revealed long‑standing violations of licence terms and departmental directions.
In that inspection, the officials allegedly found serious lapses: irregularities in the functioning of the digital lock system, absence of CCTV cameras near the flow meter, non‑installation of a “dharmkanta” (weighbridge), non‑availability of connecting rods, and other breaches of licence/N.O.C. conditions and Excise Department circulars. On this basis, the second FIR alleged that the warehouse management, the company, the agency responsible for digital locks, and tanker operators had, in deliberate connivance, promoted black‑marketing of ethyl alcohol/ethanol.
The State argued that these violations existed even before the tanker‑siphoning incident and reflected a larger conspiracy with broader ramifications, beyond the limited facts of the first FIR. Therefore, they said, the second FIR covered a different “canvas” and was legally sustainable.
The State also relied on Supreme Court precedents, including State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772; Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254; Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441; Varshaben Kantilal Purani vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 11 SCC 774; Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 6 SCC 384; and a Patna High Court judgment in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2022 (3) PLJR 490. These decisions recognise that:
more than one FIR may be permissible when they relate to distinct incidents, or when a later‑discovered conspiracy covers a larger field and cannot be equated with the earlier case.
The State further submitted that there is no express bar on applying Indian Penal Code provisions alongside the Excise Act even though the latter is a special statute.
The Court closely examined the contents of both FIRs and the legal tests laid down in Babubhai and other Supreme Court cases. The Court noted that an FIR sets the criminal law in motion and marks the start of investigation, which concludes with the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While multiple pieces of information about the same incident are treated as statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C., a second FIR is not permissible if it relates to the same incident or is just another part of the same transaction.
However, where two FIRs concern separate incidents, or where a later‑discovered conspiracy or offence is of a different and wider scope, a subsequent FIR can be sustained. Each case must be tested on its own facts; there is no rigid formula.
Applying these principles, the Court found crucial factual differences between the two FIRs:
First, the informants were different officers from different districts. The informant in Excise P.S. Case No. 195 of 2020 was an Excise Inspector from East Champaran, while the informant in Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 was an Excise Inspector from West Champaran, Bettiah.
Second, the accused persons in the two FIRs were not the same. The first FIR named the tanker owner, driver, pick‑up owner and similar actors involved directly in siphoning ethanol from a tanker. The second FIR, by contrast, targeted the company operating the warehouse, the authorised digital lock agency, and tanker operators for alleged systemic violations and black‑marketing.
Third, the scope of investigation and nature of allegations were substantially different. The first FIR dealt with the specific act of siphoning ethanol on 25.04.2020, a relatively “smaller field on narrow dimension”. The second FIR, based on warehouse inspection, raised issues of licence breaches, missing safety infrastructure, irregular digital lock systems and an alleged larger conspiracy with broader ramifications.
Given these differences, the Court held that the first and second FIRs could not be treated as relating to the same occurrence or the same transaction. The second FIR was not merely an additional statement or improvement of the first, but was founded on separate and wider alleged illegalities.
The Court therefore concluded that Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 was legally maintainable and did not violate Article 21. The petitioners had not made out a case for quashing the second FIR.
On the argument that the special Excise Act excluded application of the Indian Penal Code, the Court accepted the State’s contention that there was no express bar against invoking IPC offences along with the Excise Act provisions in such cases. That objection, therefore, did not help the petitioners.
In the result, the Patna High Court held that the two FIRs were “different fundamentally from each other” and that the second FIR could proceed. The writ petition seeking quashing of Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioners.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for businesses and individuals dealing with regulated products like ethanol and liquor in Bihar.
First, it clarifies that authorities may file a separate FIR when warehouse inspections reveal wider licence violations or suspected black‑marketing, even if another FIR already exists about a related incident like tanker theft. As long as the causes of action, accused and scope of investigation differ, the second FIR may stand.
Second, companies cannot assume that only transporters or drivers will be targeted when diversion of material is caught. If inspection finds lapses such as missing CCTV, digital locks or weighbridges, management itself may face serious criminal allegations under both the Excise Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Third, the ruling reaffirms that courts will not lightly interfere with investigations at an early stage on the ground of multiple FIRs. The “test of sameness” will be applied strictly; if a later case points to a broader conspiracy or systemic violations, quashing is unlikely.
For licence‑holders under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, the decision underlines the importance of strictly following all licence conditions and departmental directions, not just on paper but in day‑to‑day operations.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020 was an impermissible second FIR for the same incident as Excise P.S. Case No. 195 of 2020 and hence liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the two FIRs were fundamentally different in informants, accused, allegations and scope of investigation, and therefore the second FIR was maintainable. -
Issue: Whether offences under the Indian Penal Code could be added along with offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 in the second FIR concerning ethanol handling and alleged black‑marketing.
Answer: Yes. The Court accepted that there is no specific bar preventing simultaneous application of IPC provisions with the Excise Act, even though the Excise Act is a special statute.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254
- Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 6 SCC 348
- T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181
- Krishna Lal Chawla vs. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 435
- State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772
- Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441
- Varshaben Kantilal Purani vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 11 SCC 774
- Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 384
- Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2022 (3) PLJR 490
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1281 of 2021
Case Title: M/s Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024(1) PLJR 574
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 19.10.2023
Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate; Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate; Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Advocates for Respondents/State: Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP‑7; Ms. Supragya, AC to GP‑7; Ms. Roona, AC to GP‑7
Nature of the Case: Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR (Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020)
Impugned FIR: Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 230 of 2020, dated 26.04.2020, District West Champaran, arising out of alleged violations in ethanol handling and warehouse management, under Sections 284, 285, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420 and 34 IPC read with Sections 30(a) and 31 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
