By:- Divya Maini
In the Supreme Court of India
| NAME OF THE CASE | Satvinder Singh Saluja & Ors. v/s The State of Bihar |
| CITATION | Criminal Appeal No.951of 2019 |
| DATE OF THE CASE | 1st July, 2019 |
| APPELLANT | Satvinder Singh Saluja & Ors. |
| RESPONDENT | The State of Bihar |
| BENCH/JUDGE | K. M. Joseph & Ashok Bhushan |
| STATUTES INVOLVED | Code of Criminal Procedure; Bihar Excise Act, 1915; Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 |
| IMPORTANT SECTIONS | Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 2(17) and 2(17A) of Bihar Excise Act, 1915; Section 2(53) and Section 2(54) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)Act, 2016. |
ABSTRACT
The case deals with a question on including a private vehicle within the definition of ‘public place’. The Rotarians(appellants), travelling from Jharkhand to Patna were found drunk in their private vehicle. But no liquor or intoxicants were found. The appellants were then arrested and kept in custody for two days. First Information Report was lodged against them. Nawada district’s Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. For setting aside the Magistrate’s order and quashing the FIR, the appellants then approached Patna High Court but the court dismissed their application. Finally, the appellants approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court noted that the definition of ‘public place’ includes private vehicles and private conveyance. Also, the court could not give the decision regarding the consumption of liquor within the state. The Supreme Court gave liberty to the appellants to file an application with the learned magistrate, who shall give the decision and dismissed the appeal.
INTRODUCTION
The case is an appeal filed by the appellants(accused) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the Patna High Court’s order of dismissing their application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order to take cognizance. In the given case, the appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the Magistrate’s order and the application is dismissed by the Patna High Court. The appellant then moved to the Supreme Court by filing an appeal.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 is an act of Bihar’s Legislative Assembly. It states that no person shall manufacture, bottle, distribute, transport, collect, store, possess, purchase, sell or consume any intoxicant or liquor. The Act provides for the prohibition and regulation of liquor as well as the punishment for violation of the law.
The case is of people being arrested for being found drunk in their private vehicle and claiming that it is not a public place. The learned judge had noticed that the definition of ‘place’ under Section 2(17) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, which includes “vehicle”. As the word ‘place’ includes vehicle, similarly the word ‘public place’ shall be interpreted.
Furthermore, the Apex Court considered that the appellant’s private vehicle was intercepted when it was on the public road and the public has an opportunity to approach the private vehicle while it is on the public road. The definition of ‘public place’ under Section 2(17A) of Bihar Excise Act, 1915 and Section 2(54) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 includes the private vehicle of the appellants. Also, a claim was made regarding the consumption of liquor which wasn’t decided by the Supreme Court. The court stated that this matter shall be decided by the learned magistrate.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On the 25th of June, 2016, the appellants were travelling from Jharkhand to Patna to attend a meeting of the Rotary club. Their vehicle was stopped at Rajauli check post, Nawada, Bihar by a Sub-Inspector Excise. The appellants were subjected to a breath analyzer test in which a certain amount of alcohol was found, although there was no alcohol found in their vehicle.
The appellants were then arrested and kept in custody for two days. On the same day, FIR was lodged against them.
Later, on the 30th of July, 2016, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nawada took cognizance. The appellants filed an application under Section 482 of CrPC for setting aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order. On 16th February 2018, the High Court dismissed the application. So, the appellants filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether the vehicle in which the appellants were travelling can be said to be a public place within the meaning of Section 2(17A) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE
- Learned counsel for the appellants(accused)submitted before the Supreme Court, that the no offence is made out under Section 53(a) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate made an error taking the cognizance.
- The vehicle in which the appellants were traveling cannot be said to be a public place under Section 2(17A) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
- Though Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment)Act, 2016 provides consumption of liquor in a public place but it is submitted that in the search no liquor bottles were found. Hence, it is said that no offence of liquor consumption is committed and Section 53(a) shall not be applicable.
- The learned counsel referred to the provision of Section 2(54) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 which provides the definition of ‘public place’ which includes any transport that is public or private. Thus, any private vehicle is a public place according to the definition under Section 2(54) which was not there in Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
- Though Section 37 provides a penalty for the consumption of liquor which also includes an offence if a person is found drunk or in drunkenness state at any place, whereas there is no such offence under Section 53 of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE
- Learned counsel for the state, Shri Shivam Singh submitted that Bihar is a state where prohibition is imposed under Section 19(4) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Violation of this prohibition must be treated equal to committing an offence.
- The vehicle of the appellants was intercepted at a public place. Offence has been committed under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 and no error is committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
- The learned counsel referred to the case of Confederation of India Alcoholic Beverage Companies & Anr. Vs Manoj Kumar & Ors. 2016, where the court set aside the prohibition imposing notification issued under Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
- Also, referring to State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies & Anr, where the judgement of Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies & Anr. Vs Manoj Kumar & Ors. Was challenged in the High Court and division bench of Patna High Court. As a result, the legal position of notification was recovered back.
- Also, it can be seen that the appellants(accused) had only made a submission regarding the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s competence to take cognizance, where the submission was rejected.
RELATED PROVISIONS
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides saving of inherent powers of the High Court. It states that nothing in this code shall limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
- Section 2(17) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, provides the definition of ‘place’ including building, house, shop, boat, vessel, raft, vehicle or tent.
- Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, states the definition of ‘public place’ that is any place to which the public have access, whether as a matter of right or not and includes all places visited by the general public and open space.
- Section 2(53) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, defines the ‘place’ including building, house, shop, boat, booth, vessel, raft, vehicle, conveyance or tent enclosure.
- According to the definition of “Public Place” under Section 2(54) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,2016, A place is considered to be a public place, if such place has public access whether as a matter of right or not and all places visited by the general public. Also, any open space or any transport, whether private or public.
JUDGEMENT
It is to be noted that the definition of ‘place’ includes “vehicle”. As the word ‘place’ includes vehicle, similarly the word ‘public place’ shall be interpreted. The Court has considered that the appellant’s private vehicle was intercepted when it was on the public road and the public has the opportunity to approach the private vehicle while it is on the public road. The definition of ‘public place’ includes the private vehicle of the appellants.
Also, considering the notifications dated 27th March 1979 and 19th September 1980 no more relevant after the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, the private conveyance shall not be excluded from the definition of ‘public place’.
Furthermore, a person who consumes liquor in a different state cannot be punished unless there is a piece of evidence to prove that the liquor consumption by the accused has taken place in Bihar. The Apex Court could not make a decision in this matter as to whether the consumption of liquor has taken place within the state of Bihar or not. The Supreme Court is of the view that the appellants shall be provided with the liberty to file an application for discharge before the Magistrate, who shall be considering the materials on record and the charge-sheet. The appeal is disposed of.
CONCLUSION
Many state governments in India had attempted to deal with the social problem of alcoholism through the prohibition laws. The evil of alcoholism only furthers the misery and economic impoverishment ad thus, the prohibition has been considered a tool in controlling the situation.
In the state of Bihar, the women affected by domestic violence considered alcohol as the root cause of the problem. There was a need to reduce violence and promote a healthy lifestyle. The state saw prohibition laws as an effective tool to combat alcoholism and improve the lifestyle.
The case above revolves around and provides importance to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 enacted and implemented to prohibit and regulate liquor in the state. Hence, punishes the person who violates the law.
