Name of Judgment:- Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v. State of Bihar

Court Name:- The honorable Supreme court of India

Date of Judgment:- 1 July 2019

Citation:- AIR (2019) 7 SCC 89

Bench Name:- K Joseph and A Bhushan

Summary of Facts:-

• Satvindar Singh Saluja and others (appellant), were travelling from Giridih, Jharkhand to Patna, Bihar to attend a meeting of Rotary Club on 25.06.2016, in a private vehicle bearing No.JH-11K/8146.

• The vehicle was stopped at Rajalui checkpoint for a check-up in Nawada district of Bihar by Sup-Inspector Sachidanand, Bharati.

• . During checkup no intoxicants or liquor was found in the apparent vehicle but when they were subjected to breath analyser test certain quantity of alcohol was found.

• The appellants were arrested and remained in custody for two days, the appelant was booked under section 53(a) of the Bihar excise ( amendment) act 2016 and the FIR was lodged on 25.06.2016 under Excise Case No.316 of 2016.

• The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nawada took cognizance by order dated 30.07.2016. The appellants filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance.

• The High Court vide its order dated 16.02.2018 dismissed the application under Section 482.

• Aggrieved by the order this appeal has been filed by the appellant in the supreme court of India

Issues Raised:-

• Whether there is any violation of Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 by the side of appellant.

Contentions from both the sides:-

• Learned counsel from the appellant side submits that there is no offence by the appellant under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, as the vehicle in which they were travelling is not a public place as per Section 2(17A) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. And also the ingredient of Section 53(a) related to consumption of liquor in public place is not satisfied as no liquor bottles was found from appellants car.

• He also referred to Section 2(54) of the Bihar Prohibition and exercise act 2016, where public place has been defined and that placeppincludes any transport, whether public or private. Thus, as per definition, a private vehicle is also a public place which definition was not there in Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Also, Section 37 provides for penalty for consumption of liquor where now it is also an offence if a person is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness at any place, whereas under Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 there was no such offence in Section 53 of the Act.

• Counsel from respondent side contends that Bihar is a State where prohibition is imposed under Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, on consumption of alcohol, By Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 Section 53- ”Penalty for consumption of liquor in public place” has been inserted. Also the definition of ”place” and ”Public Place” has been changed in the definition clause 2(54) specific inclusion of “any transport, whether public or private” has been made. In place of Section 53 which provided for penalty for consumption of liquor in public place, a new section, namely, Section 37 providing for ”penalty for consumption of liquor” has been introduced.

• The appellant mentioned that even if they are intoxicated then also their vehicle cannot be treated to be a public place hence, Section 53(a) shall not be applicable. Also the inclusion of “any transport, whether public or private” in definition clause of Section 2(54) clearly indicates that said concept was not present in the definition of ”public place” introduced by Section 2(17A) by Amendment Act, 2016. It is true that the earlier definition of ”public ”place” as in Section 2(17A) did not include any transport, whether public or private, Hence the definition of ”place” as in Bihar Excise Act, 1915, Section 2(17) is the inclusive definition which specifically includes “vehicle”. When word ”place” includes vehicle the words ”public place” have to be interpreted in the same light.

• Also private vehicle of the appellants was intercepted when it was on the public road. Which means public have access to it. Hence, it cannot be accepted that vehicle in which appellants was travelling was not covered by definition of ”public place” as per Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016

• Also the notifications dated 27.03.1979 and 19.09.1980 defined ”public place” as “any place intended for use by or accessible to the public and shall include any public conveyance”. Which means private conveyance isn’t included in the notification and State did not prohibit possession and consumption of any intoxicant in a ”private conveyance”. But the above notifications are no more relevant after the Amendment, hence it cannot be accepted that private conveyance will be excluded from the definition of ”public place” as contained in Section 2(17A).

• Also, offence under Section 53(a) can be committed only when appellant consumes liquor in a public place. But the action has to happen within Bihar. A person who consumes liquor in a different State cannot be fastened with a penalty under Section 53(a) but now as per section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 if a person consumes liquor outside Bihar and enter into the territory of Bihar he can be charged with offence. But no offence as per Section 37(b) was provided in Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, thus, the consumption of liquor has to be in the State of Bihar only.

The judgment of the Case

• However, the bench said that “we cannot take a decision on the above issue in this appeal. Whether charge that consumption of liquor has taken place within the State of Bihar is made out in the facts of the present case are questions which need to be decided by the Magistrate after looking into the materials brought on record by means of the charge sheet. We, in the facts of the present case, are of the view that the ends of justice be served in providing that appellants shall be at liberty to file an application to discharge before the learned Magistrate who after considering the materials on record shall decide the said application of discharge in accordance with law.” And the appeal was disposed of providing that the appellants shall be at liberty to file an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate, who shall decide the said application taking into consideration the materials on record, in accordance with law.

 Comments on the Case

I belief that this case seems to be one among the lot, which specify the strict equation of legislation without any loophole to play with. The court by this judgement overruled the Kerala high court judgement which was passed in year 1999 stating that a private car on a public road is still a private space and anything activity such as smoking which is an offence if committed on public place if occur in a private car also, it will be considered to be happened on public place. I think this verdict has a route in a right direction as per the law informed at the time.