Complaint must plead essential ingredients of excise offences; absent averments can justify quashing under inherent criminal jurisdiction.

A complaint under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act must plead the essential ingredients of the alleged offences with specificity. For Section 54(1)(a), it must allege that women were employed or permitted to be employed by the licensed vendor in violation of Section 25(2) and that the conduct occurred in the part of the premises where liquor was consumed by the public; the text states these averments were absent. For Section 57(c), it must identify a licence condition that was wilfully breached; the text states no such condition was specified. Where the allegations do not constitute any offence, the High Court may exercise inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the cognizance order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Section 54(1)(a) and Section 57(c) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint had to show, for an offence under Section 54(1)(a), that women were employed or permitted to be employed by the licensed vendor in contravention of Section 25(2), and that such employment occurred in a part of the licensed premises where liquor was consumed by the public. The complaint did not aver either that the women performing the cabaret were employed or permitted to be employed by the club or that liquor was being consumed by the public in the relevant part of the premises. For Section 57(c), the complaint failed to specify any condition of the licence that had been wilfully breached. Where the allegations do not constitute any offence, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the cognizance order.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose offences under Section 54(1)(a) or Section 57(c), and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---