(Criminal Appeal No.951 of 2019)
FACTS:
- Satvinder Singh Saluja and others (appellant) were going in a private car bearing No.JH-11K/8146 from Giridih, Jharkhand to Patna, Bihar, to attend a Rotary Club meeting on June 25, 2016.
- The car was halted for a check-up at Rajalui checkpoint in Bihar’s Nawada district by Sub-Inspector Sachidanand, Bharati.
- During the check-up, there were no intoxicants or liquor in the apparent vehicle, but a specific amount of alcohol was found when exposed to a breathalyzer test.
- The appellants were arrested and detained for two days. The appellant was charged under section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 2016, and the FIR was filed on June 25, 2016, under Excise Case No.316 of 2016.
- By order dated July 30, 2016, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nawada took cognizance. The appellants applied Section 482 CrPC., requesting that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance, dated 30.07.2016, be set aside.
- The High Court denied the claim under Section 482 on February 16, 2018.
- The appellant has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India after being dissatisfied with the ruling.
ISSUE RAISED:
Whether or not the appellant violated Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
CONTENTIONS:
The appellant’s learned counsel contends that the appellant committed no offense under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, since the car in which they were traveling was not a public place as defined by Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Furthermore, Section 53(a) requirement regarding liquor drinking in a public location is not met because discovered no liquor bottles in the appellant’s vehicle.
He also referenced Section 2(54) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016, which defines a public place as any mode of transportation, whether public or private. Thus, according to the definition, a private vehicle is also a public location, which was not present in the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Also, Section 37 of the Act allows for a punishment for the drinking of liquor, and it is now an offense if a person is discovered intoxicated or in a condition of intoxication anywhere, previously there was no such violation under Section 53 of the Act under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
Respondent counsel claims that Bihar is a state where alcohol drinking is prohibited by Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Section 53 of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, titled “Penalty for Consumption of Liquor in Public Place,” has been added. In addition, the definition of “place” and “Public Place” has been altered in defining clause 2(54), with the addition of “any transit, whether public or private.” Instead of Provision 53, which provided a penalty for drinking in a public place, a new section, Section 37, has been added that provides a “penalty for drinking in a public place.”
The appellant said that even if they are inebriated, they cannot consider their car a public place, so Section 53(a) does not apply. Furthermore, the presence of “any mode of transportation, whether public or private” in the defining clause of Section 2(54) implies that it did not contain this idea in the definition of “public space” provided by Amendment Act, 2016 Section 2(17A). Indeed, the older meaning of “public place” as in Section 2(17A) did not include any mode of transportation, whether public or private. As a result, the definition of “place” as in Bihar Excise Act, 1915, Section 2(17) is the inclusive definition that expressly includes “vehicle.” When the term “place” consists of a vehicle, the phrase “public place” must be understood similarly.
The appellants’ private automobile was also stopped while on a public route. That is, the general public has access to it. As a result, it cannot be recognized that the vehicle in which appellants were traveling did not fall under the concept of “public place” as defined in Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
Notifications from 27.03.1979, 9.09.1980 also defined “public place” as “any area meant for use by or available to the public, including any public conveyance.” It indicates that the notice does not cover private transportation, and the state does not ban the possession and use of intoxicants in “private transportation.” However, the prior notifications are no longer applicable following the Amendment; therefore, it cannot be acknowledged that would exempt private conveyance from the concept of “public place” as defined in Section 2. (17A).
Furthermore, the infraction under Section 53(a) can only be committed if the appellant drinks liquor in a public location. However, the action must take place in Bihar. An individual who drinks liquor in another state is not subject to punishment under Section 53(a), however under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, a person who consumes liquor outside Bihar and enters Bihar’s territory can be charged with an offense. However, no offense under Section 37(b) was granted in the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, hence liquor drinking is limited to the state of Bihar.[i]
RATIONALE:
The bench, however, stated that “we cannot make a ruling on the point above in this appeal.” Whether the accusation of the use of liquor inside the State of Bihar is made out in the circumstances of the present case is an issue that the Magistrate must resolve after reviewing the information submitted on record by way of the charge sheet. In the context of this case, we believe that the objectives of justice are served by allowing appellants to make an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate, who, after examining the record information, shall resolve the said application for release. In conformity with the law.” And the appeal in the supreme court was dismissed with the provision that the appellants may apply for discharge before the learned Magistrate, who shall decide the said application under law, taking into account the materials on record.
The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016[ii], was passed and implemented to prohibit and control liquor in the state, and the case above centers around it. As a result, the individual who breaks the law gets punished.
The court overrules a 1999 Kerala high court decision[iii] that said that a private automobile on a public road is still a private space and that any such actions that are an offense if conducted on public space would be regarded to have occurred on public space if they occur in a private car.
To summarize, judicial activism had a significant influence on statutory interpretation. Sometimes laws include loopholes, and the purpose of the legislation isn’t always evident. Then there’s the judiciary’s involvement, which can be observed in this instance. Also, the interpretation was excellent, and nicely implemented the notion of the rule of law.
“Law isn’t a precise science.” Its colors shift based on the situation and vary from law to statute. The implementation of the law is frequently influenced by background circumstances and the practicality of the situation.”
DEFECTS OF THE LAW:
Though there was chaos in the legal points since the law was imprecise and unclear, the court’s foresight and judicial activism ensured that it did justice. Though it may question several flaws further, the court worked diligently to settle the issue and reach the proper result of maintaining the law as sovereign. The case necessitated a rigid application of the law, with no loopholes to exploit.
INFERENCE:
Most people believe that this case is one of many that describe the rigid equation of legislation with no loophole to play with. The court overruled a 1999 Kerala high court decision that stated that a private car on a public road is still a private space and that any activity such as smoking, which is an offense if committed on public property, will be considered to have occurred on public property if it occurs in a private car as well. According to the legislation at the time, this judgment is on the proper track.
REFERENCES:
[i] Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16128431/ (July 16th 2021)
[ii] Bare Act Live http://www.bareactslive.com/BIH/bh565.htm (July 16th 2021)
[iii] ThePrint https://theprint.in/judiciary/a-private-car-on-a-public-road-is-public-place-rules-sc/256889/ (July 16th 2021)
- PARV BAKLIWAL
- NMIMS SCHOOL OF LAW BANGALORE