RAKA GHIRA Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the proceedings arising out of case FIR No.210 dated 24.7.2011, under Section 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act (as amended and as applicable in UT Chandigarh), registered at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh and the consequential proceedings including charges framed against the petitioner.

(2.) In support of the petition, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a pure question of law is involved in the present petition and if the question is answered in favour of the petitioner, the proceedings in question would amount to abuse of process of law and consequently the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will have to be exercised. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, even the pure question of law that is being raised in the present petition is no more res integra and has been decided by this Court at least in two decisions. She cited the two decisions which this Court rendered as under:-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that perusal of the FIR itself shows that the alleged offence took place on 24.7.2011 inasmuch as the raid was conducted at the residential house of the petitioner wherein there are other members of the family having liquor licences in their favour and some bottles of IMF liquor were seized from the house. The crucial question, according to Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that it has been categorically held that under the amended provisions of the Act which are in terms applicable to the UT Chandigarh, the police (CBI) does not have a power even to register FIR much less to prosecute any person. The reason, according to her, is that the power has been given to the Excise Officer in the cases where only liquor is involved. In other words, according to her, if there is an intoxicant other than liquor that is seized from the accused, then the police has got the power to register such offence. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, in the instant case, even according to the prosecution IMFL bottles were seized from the house of the petitioner and not any intoxicant. There is no allegation about the intoxicant other than liquor found in the raid. The offence allegedly took place after the amendment to the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that this being a matter of jurisdictional issue and absence of authority in the police (CBI) to launch prosecution, the proceedings will have to be quashed as held by this court in the two decisions cited supra.