Jharkhand High Court
Badal Jaiswal, K.D. Liquor And ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 24 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2008(56)BLJR1364, [2008(2)JCR419(JHR)], 2008 CRI. L. J. 2537, 2008 (2) AIR JHAR R 220 (2008) 65 ALLINDCAS 319 (JHA), (2008) 65 ALLINDCAS 319 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Page 1365
1. All the three writ applications arise out of the same F.I.R. and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. All the above mentioned writ petitions have been filed for quashing of the first information report being Barwadda P.S. Case No. 183 dated 31/07/2004 (Annexure-1), which has been registered under Sections 272, 273/34 IPC against the above named petitioners, who are named in the FIR.
3. The FIR has been registered on the basis of a written report lodged by Sri Narayan Prabhakar, Circle Officer Govindpur. It has been alleged in the first information report that on receipt of secret information that illegal manufacturing and sale of country made liquor was going on in the premises of K.D. Liquor and Fertilizers Private Limited, the informant alongwith his team reached at the premises, i.e. K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. on 30/07/2004 at 9.30 P.M. and made inspection in presence of two independent witnesses. In course of inspection it was found that manufacturing of country made liquor was going on. In course of in Section 35 pouches each containing 200 Ml., country made liquor was found ready. Apart from that, in three storage tanks 3015.45 bulk litres of country made liquor was also found. In a tanker lorry bearing No. WB 23-3196, which was standing in the premises 12249.6 bulk litres of spirit, was also found. On inquiry from one Binod Kumar Sharma, who was present at the spot as to how illegal manufacturing of country made liquor was going on, he could not give satisfactory answer and stated that it can only be explained by the Manager Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and the owner Badal Jaiswal, who only look after the business. The materials found there were seized and thereafter, written report was submitted to the police for registering a case. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against the petitioners.
4. The petitioner Badal Jaiswal in W.P. (Cr.) No. 402/2004 has mainly taken the plea that he is in no way connected with the affairs of the K.D. Liquor and Fertilizers Private Limited and he is absolutely an outsiders and, therefore, the accusation against him is absolutely false. Further that the K.D. Liquor and Fertilizers Private Limited has been granted license to vend liquor therefore, it cannot be said that it is Page 1366 engaged in the manufacturing and sale of the illegal liquor and that under the provision of Section 69 of the Bihar Excise Act, the informant had no authority to enter and inspect the warehouse of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner K.D. Liquor and Fertilizes Private Limited in W.P. (Cr.) No. 403/2004 has mainly taken the plea that the Company is engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of country made liquor on the basis of the license granted to it to vend country liquor by the Commissioner of Excise, Dhanbad on 08/04/2002 for the period from 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2005 vide Annexure-2 and, therefore, the Company was authorized to manufacture and sale the country liquor and, therefore, registering the ease against this illegal.
6. The petitioner Ashok Kumar Jaiswal in W.P. (Cr.) No. 404/2004 has taken the plea that he is also an outsider and is in no way connected with the affairs of the K.D. Liquor and Fertilizers Private Limited. He is not even employee of the Company and, therefore, the accusation against him is false.
7. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit also wherein they has stated that the business premises of which search was made by respondent No. 3 were controlled and managed by K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., which was granted license to vend in the country liquor. The license was renewed for the financial year 2004-2005 by issue of Annexure-8 dated 03/08/2004.
8. Mr. Pathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the rectified spirit of the country liquor stored and found in the premises where from legitimate source and had been transported under proper supervision, authority and control of excise authority. He submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, no offence as alleged is made out. K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. having been granted a license to vend liquor cannot in any case be said to be engaged in manufacturing or sale of liquor illegally and, therefore, the allegations made in the first information report is frivolous and fictitious.
9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 controverting the stand taken by the petitioners in the aforesaid three writ petitions and it is submitted that on the date when the inspection of the business premises of K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. was searched, i.e. on 30th July 2004, admittedly then was no license to M/s K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. to manufacture and vend country made liquor whereas during inspection it was found that the manufacturing of country liquor was going on in the aforesaid business premises, as such, it is clear that without any valid license, manufacturing and vending of country liquor was being made in the premises of M/s K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the allegations made in the first information report prima-facie made out a case for commission of the offence under Sections 272 and 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
So far as legal possession with regard to the quashing of the complaint in FIR is concerned, the same is now settled by a catena of decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court. It is well settled now that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. Once an offence is disclosed, the investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice, to collect materials for establishing the offence and for bringing Page 1367 the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large Justice requires that a person, who commits an offence, has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case, where an offence has been disclosed and whether an offence has been disclosed or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
10. In the present case, from the allegations made in the FIR, it is clear that at the time of inspection a large quantity of country made liquor was found in the business premises of the petitioner K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and it was also found that manufacturing of country liquor was going on. Even from the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in these writ petitions, it appears that the license to manufacture and vend country liquor for the financial year 2004-2005 was renewed on 03/08/2004 whereas the inspection was made on 30th July 2004. Therefore, admittedly, on that day K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. had no valid license in between the period from 01/07/2004 to 03/08/2004 to manufacture and vend country liquor. Even according to the petitioner, the license to manufacture and vend was valid up to 30th June 2004 only and it was renewed only on 03/08/2004.
11. The question as to whether the petitioners Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Badal Jaiswal were outsiders and whether they had any connection with the business and affairs of M/s. K.D. Liquor & Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. or not, are the questions which require proper and thorough investigation and this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot start enquiry or investigation on the basis of the documents, submitted by the petitioners to come to a definite findings on those facts.
12. In view of the discussions made above, no case for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out. Accordingly, all the above mentioned three writ petitions are hereby dismissed.