DHARMENDRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. In both these applications, the applicant is the same and the issue involved is also similar and hence, they are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under; The applicant herein appears to be running a liquor shop at the Union Territory of Diu though such license stands in the name of his mother. On the basis of some secret information, two different complaints came to be registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act with two different police stations. The first complaint came to be registered with Veraval Police Station on 31.10.2019 vide C.R. No. III - 226 of 2019 against four accused persons for offences punishable under sections 65- E, 98(2), 99 and 81 of the Act and the other complaint came to be registered with Una Police Station on 15.03.2020 vide FIR No. 11186008200278 of 2020 against one accused person for offences punishable under section 65(e) of the Act. In both these complaints, the applicant has not been named as an accused; however, on the basis of the statement of the co-accused persons, the applicant has been arraigned as an accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the present applications have been preferred.

(3.) Ms. Alka Vaniya, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has not been named as an accused in the impugned complaints and that solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the applicant has been arraigned as an accused. It was contended that the applicant is running a licensed liquor shop at the Union Territory of Diu and is not connected with the impugned complaints registered in the said two police stations in Gujarat State. It was, accordingly, urged that both the impugned complaints deserve to be quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein.