STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LOHANA DHIRAJLAL MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opponent in this revision application one Lohana Dhirajlal Mohanlal was sought to be prosecuted for the offence under sec. 66(1)(b) and 67(1)(c) of the Bombay Prohibition Act in Criminal Case No. 1285 of 1971 of the Court of J.M.F.C. Mangrol Keshod at Keshod. The learned Magistrate found from the police papers that along with the articles which were seized by the police from the accused there was one permit which authorised the possession of one bottle of denatured spirit for domestic purpose. The spirit which was seized by the police from the accused was less than one bottle in quantity. In view of this the learned Magistrate passed an order under sec. 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code stopping further proceedings of the case and releasing the accused. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Magistrate is as under:

(2.) The contention which is raised on behalf of the State is that the learned Magistrate was not justified in stopping further proceedings of the case under sec. 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code in this manner because the stoppage of the case as contemplated by this section of the Code _an be ordered only in exceptional circumstances justifying the same. It was contended that in this case the proper course for the learned Magistrate was to adopt the normal procedure and to pass suitable orders only after recording evidence offered by the prosecution.

(3.) I find that the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing the order sought to be revised. According to sec. 249 of the Code in any case instituted otherwise than upon a complaint the Magistrate of First Class may for the reasons to be recorded by him stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment either of acquittal or conviction and may thereupon release the accused. The section is undoubtedly worded in a wide language but the provisions of the section cannot be applied to a case which can be disposed of by adopting the normal procedure contemplated by the Code. In my view this section is put in the scheme of the Code to meet with the contingencies wherein either for the absence of an accused person or of an important witness of the prosecution the Magistrate does not find it possible to dispose of the matter. In such circumstances it would be open to the Magistrate to stop further proceedings of the case without passing any order as regards acquittal or conviction of the accused and to restart the proceedings when the cause for which the proceedings are stopped no more remains in force. It is therefore under special or unusual circumstances which make it difficult or impossible for the Magistrate to proceed with the case in the normal way that the provisions of sec. 249 of the Code can be applied. But even if it is found that the case can be decided on merits without any hindrance in the normal manner as per procedure contemplated by the Code there is no reason to take resort to the provisions of sec. 249 of the Code.