The Missing Twenty-Four Bottles
On 14 March, Excise Inspector Harpreet Kaur conducts a surprise check at a country-liquor vend in a village near Moga. The stock register shows 480 bottles of 750 ml Punjab Medium Liquor received on 1 March from the district depot and a closing balance of 120 bottles. The physical count is 96 sealed bottles and 8 empty bottles. The transport permit for the 480 bottles names truck PB-10-AB-1234, but the dispatch register at the vend records receipt from PB-10-CD-5678. The salesman says 24 bottles were 'adjusted' against breakage, but no breakage register or intimation was made. Two customers were served at 10:20 p.m., although the District Excise Officer's order for the current policy year fixes 10:00 p.m. as closing time. The vend has no CCTV coverage of the sales counter, and the daily sale register has overwritten entries for 8 and 9 March. The licensee is absent. A crowd of about 30 people gathers and the salesman offers to 'settle the matter'.
1. Quantify the stock discrepancy and state what it legally suggests. Identify the alternative explanations you must exclude before framing a finding.
Read the worked answer
Register balance: 480 received minus 120 closing = 360 bottles treated as sold or issued. Physical closing stock is 96 sealed bottles. Shortage = 120 - 96 = 24 bottles, i.e. 24 x 750 ml = 18 litres. The 8 empties are not saleable stock and do not reduce the shortage; if they represent breakage, a breakage register and intimation should have existed. The exact 24-bottle 'adjustment' is therefore an unaccounted removal, not a mere counting error. Legally it raises a presumption of unrecorded sale or removal, excise-duty and VAT evasion, and breach of the stock-register condition of the licence. Before concluding, exclude: (a) short dispatch by the depot, by checking the depot issue slip and case serials; (b) stock kept at an approved additional storage or entered in another register; and (c) theft by staff. The salesman's explanation is weak because no breakage entry exists, but the shortage alone does not prove illicit manufacture; the finding should be unaccounted possession or removal unless further evidence emerges.
2. Set out the immediate procedural steps at the vend, including what you would seize, what you would not seize, and how you would handle the offer to settle.
Read the worked answer
At the spot: introduce yourself and state the purpose; summon two independent witnesses; prepare an inspection memo or panchnama with time, place, stock count and register extracts. Seize the sale register, transport-permit copies, dispatch register, cash book and the 8 empties under a proper seizure memo. Seal the remaining 96 bottles if tampering is possible, but do not seize the entire stock as 'contraband' without authority; it is licensed stock. Draw samples only if quality is in issue, following the prescribed sampling procedure. Record statements of the salesman and witnesses. Record the offer to 'settle' as an attempted illegal gratification, do not accept it, and report it to the superior officer. Issue notice for the stock discrepancy, permit mismatch and late sale, and send a report to the District Excise Officer or Collector. Any arrest must follow departmental policy and the statutory threshold; an Excise Inspector should not arrest merely to pressure a settlement.
3. How should the transport-permit mismatch and the post-10 p.m. sales be treated? Are they separate offences, and what evidence is needed for each?
Read the worked answer
They are separate violations and should not be merged into one 'shortage' charge. The permit mismatch goes to transport: a permit is vehicle- and route-specific, so receipt from PB-10-CD-5678 without endorsement suggests transhipment or misuse. Evidence: depot dispatch record, permit book, transporter's bilty, driver statement, toll or GPS data, and the vend's receipt. The late sale is a licensing or closure violation; evidence: customer statements, bills with time, CCTV (absent here), and the salesman's admission. The stock shortage is a third, accounting violation. Each needs its own notice and finding because each has a different mental element and penalty. Also check whether the vehicle change was a genuine transhipment due to breakdown; if so, obtain the endorsement or explanation, but still record the breach. Combining the three would weaken the case if challenged.