Gujarat High Court
Samirbhai Ishwarbhai Shah @ Bakabhai vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 24 November, 2017
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
R/CR.MA/15372/2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15372 of 2012
TO
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15375 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
SAMIRBHAI ISHWARBHAI SHAH @ BAKABHAI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHANSHU S PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Nov 25 03:48:32 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/15372/2012 JUDGMENT
Date : 24/11/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 All these petitions are filed for quashing of the FIRs being F.I.R No. III805/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65 B,C,E,F,81 & 86 of the Prohibition Act, F.I.R No. III709/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65B,C,D, E and Under Sections 81 and 83, F.I.R No. 710/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65B,C,D, E and Under Sections 81 and 83, and F.I.R No. 712/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66F and 81 & 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act,1949. It is the case of the applicants in the respective F.I.Rs, that their names nowhere figures in the F.I.R. They were essentially dealing in steal of jaggery/sugar. On the basis of the statement of the coaccused, who are implicated for making illicit liquor, these applicants have been sought to be prosecuted under the F.I.R under challenge.
2 Mr Sudhanshu Patel, learned advocate for the applicants, during the course of arguments has relied Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Nov 25 03:48:32 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/15372/2012 JUDGMENT on the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 13918 of 2012 and 13588 of 2011. There the Court, while disposing of the applications had stated as under:
"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 illegalpossession of rotten gur and Section 81 of the Act provides for penalty for attempts or abetment, 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 co accused, 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."
3 Mr Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has placed on record written instructions received by him by the Mahuva Police Station dated Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Nov 25 03:48:32 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/15372/2012 JUDGMENT 24.11.2017. Reading of the statement indicates that even in the present case, similar to the facts of the case in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 13588 of 2011 and 13918 of 2016, the present applicants have been implicated solely on the basis of the statements of the coaccused No.2. In view of the similar facts involved in the present applications as in the applications referred to wherein orders have been passed quashing the complaint, these Criminal Misc. Applications are allowed. The F.I.Rs being F.I.R No. III805/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65 B,C,E,F,81 & 86 of the Prohibition Act, F.I.R No. III709/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65B,C,D, E and Under Sections 81 and 83, F.I.R No. 710/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65B,C,D, E and Under Sections 81 and 83, and F.I.R No. 712/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 66F and 81 & 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent in each petition.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) Bimal Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Nov 25 03:48:32 IST 2017