AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these petitions are filed for quashing of the
FIRs being F.I.R No. III-805/2012 for offences
punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65 B,C,E,F,81 & 86
of the Prohibition Act, F.I.R No. III-709/2012 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 co-accused, who are
implicated for making illicit liquor, these applicants
have been sought to be prosecuted under the F.I.R
under challenge.
Mr Sudhanshu Patel, learned advocate for the
applicants, during the course of arguments has relied 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 co-accused, viz. accused no.1, there is no other allegation that the petitioner-accused 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."
Mr Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, has placed on record written instructions
received by him by the Mahuva Police Station dated
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 co-accused 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.
III-805/2012 for offences punishable under Sections
66(1)B, 65 B,C,E,F,81 & 86 of the Prohibition Act,
F.I.R No. III-709/2012 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.