KANTILAL GOPALBHAI TANDEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issues raised in all the captioned applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) All the applicants before me are permanent residents of Daman, a part of the Union Territory. They all claim to be engaged in the business of sale liquor in their respective wine shops on the strength of the licence issued in their favour by the competent authority. It is their case that they have been issued licence in the Form E - 25 A, by the administration of Daman and Diu (U.T.), Department of Excise, for the retail sale of foreign liquor / Indian made foreign liquor / country liquor.

(3.) All the applicants before me have been arraigned as accused in the different F.I.Rs. registered by the police of the State of Gujarat at the different Police Stations falling within the State of Gujarat. All the F.I.Rs. are for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The prayer in each of the applications is to quash the First Information Reports substantially on the ground that they all being the residents of Daman (U.T.) and engaged in the business of sale of liquor on the strength of a valid licence issued by the authority, they cannot be prosecuted with the other coaccused against whom F.I.Rs. have been registered in the police stations of the State of Gujarat. To put it in other words, according to the applicants, the Bombay Prohibition Act being a local law has no application so far as Daman is concerned. Unlike the Indian Penal Code, having an extraterritorial operation, the Bombay Prohibition Act applies only within the State of Gujarat and not to the Union Territory of Daman.