Menu

CASE COMMENTARY SATVINDER SINGH SALUJA AND OTHERS V STATE OF BIHAR, AIR (2019) 7 SCC 89

Case Comment, Publications

APPELLANTS: Satvinder Singh Saluja and Others

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar

BENCH/JUDGE: K Joseph and A Bhushan

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 01 /07/2019

LEGAL PROVISIONS: Constitution of India, Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

INTRODUCTION

The case is an appeal filed by the appellants (accused), before the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the Patna High Court’s order of dismissing their application which was filed under the Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting it aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order to take cognizance. In this provided case, the appellants filed an supporting application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of Magistrate and the application is dismissed by the Patna High Court. The appellant then moved to the Supreme Court by filing an appeal.

FACTS
  1. The appellants (Satvinder Singh Saluja and Others), were traveling from Giridih, (Jharkhand) to Patna, (Bihar) to get into a meeting of the Rotary Club on 25/06/2016.
  2. While traveling in a private vehicle, they were stopped at Rajauli check post, Nawada, Bihar for a routine checkup.
  3. The vehicle was checked by a Sub-Inspector, and although no incriminating material or liquor bottles were found, the appellants were subjected to a breath analyzer test immediately.
  4. The prosecution alleged that a certain quantity of alcohol was found in the breath analyzer test for the appellants, although no alcohol was found in their vehicle, leading to their arrest.
  5. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against them on 25/06/2016. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nawada, took cognizance by an order dated 30/07/2016.
  6. The appellants (Satvinder Singh Saluja and Others) filed an application under Section 482 CRPC, for setting aside the order taking cognizance, but the High Court dismissed their application on 16/02/2018.
  7. So, the appellants filed an appeal in the Supreme court of India.

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the private vehicle in which the appellants (Satvinder Singh Saluja and Others) were traveling can be considered “public place” under the meaning of Section 2(17A) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
  2. Whether the elements of Section 53(a) regarding the consumption of the liquor in a public place are satisfied, considering that there are no liquor bottles or incriminating materials were found during the search.
  3. Whether the consumption of liquor, as per Section 53(a), must occur within the State of Bihar for the offense to be valid.
CONTENTIONS

ARGUMENTS FROM APPELLANT (Satvinder Singh Saluja and Others)

  1. The appellants (Satvinder Singh Saluja and Ors.) argue that no offense is been made out under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. They also contend that the Chief Judicial Magistrate make a mistake in taking cognizance of the offense. The appellants were traveling from Giridih to Patna in their private vehicle, and this vehicle cannot be deemed a “public place” within the meaning of Section 2(17A) under the Act.
  2. The appellants rely that the definition of a “public place” under Section 2(54) of the ‘Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act’, 2016, which includes any transport, whether it’s public or private. They argue that this definition of ‘public place’ was not present in the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, and, therefore, their private vehicle should not be considered a public place.
  3. Emphasizing that during the search of the vehicle, there are no liquor bottles or any incriminating materials were present, the appellants argue that this absence of evidence contradicts the essential element of the offense that liquor was consumed.
  4. The appellants contend that the word “consumes” in Section 53(a) should be interpreted in the present continuous tense. They argue that the consumption of liquor must be an ongoing act within the State of Bihar for the offense to be valid.
  5. Highlighting the changes in the law, specifically the introduction of Section 37 in the ‘Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act’, 2016, which allows charges even if any person is found drunk within Bihar, irrespective of where the consumption occurred, the appellants argue that this change was not part of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

ARGUMENT FROM RESPONDENT (State of Bihar)

  1. The respondent contends that in Bihar state prohibition is implemented under Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Anyone found violating the prohibition, regardless of the specific location, should be treated as having committed an offense.
  2. The State argues that the interruption of the appellants’ in private vehicle on a public road satisfies the condition for public access, making it a public place under the definition in Section 2(17A). Public access, even if not a matter of right, allows for the applicability of the prohibition.
  3. The State contends that all the elements of Section 53(a) are satisfied, as the appellants were interrupted at a public road, and the ingredients of the offense, including the consumption of liquor in a public place, are met.
  4. Referring to a legal challenge to the prohibition notification dated 05.04.2016, which was set aside by the Patna High Court but restored by the Supreme Court; the State argues that this restoration supports in the legal position as it was after the ‘Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.’
  5. The State argues that the appellants, before the High Court of India, decides to make submissions regarding the competence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take up the cognizance, and those submissions were rightly rejected.
RATIONALE

The Supreme Court’s rationale in the ‘Satvinder Singh Saluja & Ors. v State of Bihar’ case primarily hinges on the interpretation of the term “public place” as defined under Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. The court examined into the definition, emphasizing the phrase ‘any place to which the public has access, whether as a matter of right or not.’ It concluded that if a private vehicle is moving on a public road, it meets the criteria of accessibility, making it a “public place” as per the legislative intent.

The court referred to the legislative history, noting the absence of specific mention of private vehicles in earlier notifications defined under Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. The omission created ambiguity, and the subsequent legislative amendment aimed to rectify this by clearly including “any transport, whether public or private” in the definition.

The decision considered the role of public roads in providing access to private vehicles and aligned with the broader objective of imposing total prohibition in Bihar. The court’s rationale underscored the need for a purposive interpretation of the law, ensuring its effective implementation in limiting alcohol consumption.

In arriving at this rationale, the court did not extensively cite other cases or legal sources. Instead, it focused on the language of the statute and its contextual interpretation, providing clarity on the applicability of prohibition laws to individuals consuming alcohol in private vehicles on public roads.

DEFECTS OF LAW

The defects of law in the ‘Satvinder Singh Saluja & Ors. v State of Bihar’ judgment stem from the legislative ambiguity and historical developments leading to the case. The primary legal issue arises from the absence of specific mention of private vehicles in earlier notifications defined under Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. This legislative gap contributed to the uncertainty regarding whether private vehicles could be considered “public places” under subsequent amendments.

The interpretation of the term “public place” in Section 2(17A) became a legal space due to the lack of explicit inclusion of private vehicles. The omission in earlier notifications failed to anticipate the challenges posed by evolving modes of transportation, leading to an unclear legal framework.

Furthermore, the defects in law are evident in the fact that the court did not extensively rely on precedent or established legal principles. The absence of a strong legal foundation or a clear precedent specifically addressing the inclusion of private vehicles in the representing ‘public place’ contributed to legal uncertainties that surfaced in this case.

The defects in law also relate to the evolving nature of prohibition laws in Bihar. The judgment highlights the legislative intent to rectify past shortcomings and adapt the legal framework to changing circumstances. This evolution underscores the need for continuous legal updates and clarifications to prevent ambiguities and ensure effective implementation of prohibition measures.

In essence, the defects of law in this case are rooted in the historical legislative gaps, lack of precedent, and the necessity for adapting legal frameworks to contemporary challenges, particularly in the context of evolving modes of transportation.

INFERENCE

The inference drawn from the ‘Satvinder Singh Saluja & Ors. v State of Bihar’ decision reflects the upcoming nature of legal interpretations in response to the changes affecting society and technological advancements. This case underscores the imperative for legal frameworks to adapt to contemporary realities, especially in the context of prohibition laws.

This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation of “public place” in the context of prohibition laws, particularly in states where total prohibition is imposed. The clarification that private vehicles can be deemed “public places” when on a public road sets a precedent for future cases involving similar legal nuances. It emphasizes the need for legal definitions to be expansive enough to encompass evolving modes of transportation.

Furthermore, the case commentary highlights the importance of a dynamic legal system that responds to societal changes. The judgment indicates a legislative intent to address past shortcomings and provides a foundation for more comprehensive and nuanced prohibition laws.

In a broader context, the case underscores the challenges in enforcing and interpreting prohibition laws across different states in India. The impact of this judgment extends to the legal understanding of public spaces, privacy, and individual rights in the context of prohibition measures.

In conclusion, the Satvinder Singh Saluja case has contributed to the legal discourse surrounding prohibition laws, particularly in states with total bans on liquor. It emphasizes the need for legal clarity, adaptability, and responsiveness to contemporary societal dynamics, shaping the route of future legal interpretations in similar contexts.

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 for prohibiting and regulate liquor in the state. Hence, punishes the person who violates the law.

BY:

NITANSHA BHATIA

SUSHANT UNIVERSITY, GURUGRAM