Gujarat High Court
Ishwarbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat & on 18 March, 2016
Author: R.Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy
R/CR.MA/13588/2011 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13588 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
ISHWARBHAI SHAH....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN A SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
Date : 18/03/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This Criminal Misc. Application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings of First Information Report being C.R.No.III772 of 2011 registered on the file of Navsari Rural Police Station.
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 23 01:24:12 IST 2016
R/CR.MA/13588/2011 JUDGMENT
[2] The petitioner is accused no.2 in the aforesaid crime
registered under Section 70A and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short "the Act"). The second respondent is complainant. In the complaint, it is alleged that the accused no.1 was in possession of rotten gur in violation of Sections 70A and 81 of the Act. On being searched, rotten gur of 308 kilogram stored in 14 tin boxes valued at Rs.6160/ was found. Further allegation is that when accused no.1 was questioned, he has stated that the petitioner - accused no.2 has delivered such contraband and therefore, offence under sections 70A and 81 of the Act was registered.
[3] On filing this Criminal Misc. Application, at the first instance, this Court by order dated 08.11.2011 granted interim relief in terms of paragraph no.8(B) of the petition. Under paragraph no.8(B), the petitioner has sought stay of further proceedings pursuant to the registration of First Information Report being C.R.No.III772 of 2011 registered with Navsari Rural Police Station. Subsequently, by order dated 12.08.2013, earlier order was modified permitting the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation.
[4] It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that in view of the order dated 12.08.2013, Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and filed final report so far as accused no.1 is concerned. Further it is submitted that so far as the petitioner - accused no.2 is concerned, there is no other material except statement made by accused no.1.
5] From the reading of the provision of Section 70A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, it is clear that possession of rotten gur is prohibited. The Act provides penalty for illegal possession of rotten gur and Section 81 of the Act provides for penalty for attempts or abetment, Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 23 01:24:12 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/13588/2011 JUDGMENT which are the offences under the Act. Even after the investigation is completed in the offence in question, nothing further has come out against the petitioner. As fairly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, except the statement made by the coaccused, viz. accused no.1, there is no other allegation that the petitioneraccused no.2 had delivered rotten gur to accused no.1. In the absence of any further material or any other evidence on record to connect the petitioner to the offence of possession of rotten gur, this Court is of the view that if any proceedings are allowed to go on further, the same will be the abuse of process of law. Except the statement of the coaccused, that is, accused no.1, nothing has come out against the present petitioner even after the investigation is completed.
[6] In view of such factual scenario, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report so far as the present petitioner, accused no.2 of the offence in question, is concerned.
[7] For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. First Information Report being C.R.No.III772 of 2011 registered on the file of Navsari Rural Police Station is hereby quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) satish Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 23 01:24:12 IST 2016