Landlord prosecuted after liquor meant for sale in Haryana stored in his rented room
Excise officers raided a house and seized foreign liquor meant for sale in Haryana but kept in Maharashtra, charging six persons under the Prohibition Act. The landlord said he had let the room only for electrical goods. The High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the landlord.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The case is quashed for the landlord; the position of the other accused was not decided in this order.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the Excise Inspector reported that liquor for sale in Haryana and banned in Maharashtra was stored at the applicant's house, and a raid during loading of a vehicle led to recovery and confiscation.
The High Court recorded that the applicant said he was only the landlord who had given a small ground-floor room on leave and licence from 01/11/2023 to 31/07/2026 for storing electrical items, without consent for liquor storage.
The High Court recorded that Sections 65(a) and (e) punish import, export, transport, sale, purchase or possession of intoxicant, but the applicant's role was limited to being landlord, so no offence was made out even on FIR facts.
The High Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet to the extent of the landlord applicant.
What the record says
“As can be seen from the above clauses that the role of the applicant is limited to he being a landlord of the premises in question.”
Criminal Application (APL) No. 107/2025, 2025:BHC-NAG:13250-DB, para 9 — read the full text
No complaining victim
Possessing, carrying and storing drinkable liquor involved no spurious liquor, hooch death, violence, or complaining victim.
What we could not confirm
Quantity of liquor seized and proof of Haryana-only sale marking beyond FIR recitals were not confirmed; no chemical report of spurious liquor was mentioned.