KAMI KALU RANING Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Whether in the Revision Application filed under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the State Government, challenging the impugned order of the learned Magistrate refusing remand of the accused the police custody, was the learned Sessions Judge justified in at once remanding the accused to the police custody for some days at the very first step of the admission stage, without hearing the accused ? And further still, if at all the same is ultimately found to be apparently procedurally illegal, whether the judicial discretion so exercised on that count in the facts and circumstances of the case deserves to be sustained, on the overall and exceptional ground of justness of the public cause and the substantial public interest involved in the case?" 1.1. The above two, in short, are the complex questions arising in this application for consideration of this Court which indeed are of quite farreaching implications and the significance having a definite bearing on the exercise of the 'judicial discretion' by the Court in some of the extreme and exceptionally grave and serious, and the rarest of the rare types of the cases where the Court often finds itself embarassed and on the horns of dilema on the cross-roads of the technical justice on the one hand and the overall substantial public interest on the other hand . .

(2.) Few relevant facts leading to the above questions to be briefly stated are - According to the complainant L. K. Chundavat, P. S. I., Junagadh Taluka Police Station, on 5-4-1992 at 23-30 hours (mid-night) he received a secret information to the effect that one Kathi Kalu Raning had illegally kept some cartons of bottles of English liquor imported from the other States in a small room in his occupation and possession at his Wadi situated in a Sim of village Makhiyara. Acting upon this tip-off, the P.S.I, immediately summoned two Panch witnesses and raided the said room of the petitioner who was found present there and in his presence seized 230 cartons containing 3924 bottles of the English liquor valued at Rs. 4,11,600.00 (Rupees four lacs eleven thousand six hundred) only, imported from the other State. After drawing the panchnama of the said muddamal liquor, the petitioner came to be arrested for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 66(b) and 65(a) and (e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Thereafter, the P.S.I, filed a regular complaint being No. CR-III/89-92 before the P.S.O. Junagadh Police Station on 6-4-1992 at 6-00 a.m. where according to him, the alleged offence took place on 6-4-1992 at 5-10 a.m. Thereafter, the P.S.I, producing the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh made an application under Sec. 167 of the Code praying for remand of the petitioner for 10 days. Highlighting the facts and circumstances of the case under which remand was felt absolutely necessary, it was specifically pointed out in the said application that the foreign liquor in huge quantity worth Rs. 4,11,600.00 was seized from the possession of the accused who being a habitual offender, it was indeed not possible for the police to get any further information in the matter of other possible material links connecting the accused, muddamal liquor and the possible other associates of the crime, such as (i) the place from where the muddamal liquor was imported ? (ii) in which vehicle, the muddamal in question was brought into Junagadh ? (iii) who are the other persons involved in the alleged offences either by way of dispatching and/or ultimately receiving the muddamal liquor ? (iv) who is the principal offender ? (v) whether over and above the seized muddamal liquor any other liquor - bottles were sold to any persons, and if yes, (vi) in what quantity and to which of the persons the same were sold/distributed ? (vii) whelher over and above the seized muddamal liquor, there were any other liquor bottles biddsn at any other place ? and; (viii) whether over ard above the seized muddamal, any other narcotic drugs like heroin, brownsugar, etc., have been imported in Gujarat ? Over and above the grounds enlisted above, the I. 0. was also at his pains in his remand application to point out to the Court further facts that number of times in the past because of illegal consumption of seme spurious pquor, number of hooch tragedies resulting into heavy las of precious human lives and also endangering the public health where mary persons have lost their vision had taken place in the State of Gujaiat and the other parts of the country. Under such circumstances, accoidirg to the 1.0., if the cases like the present one were not permitted to be thoroughly Investigated by not remanding the accused to the police custody, the other offerders possibly involved in the offtnces cannot be booked and in that case the possibilities of recurrence of such hooch tragedies would not be checked to the greatest detriment of the public interest. On the basis of the above, it was finally urged by the 1.0. that for the purposes of going to the root of the problem of the alleged offence, it was absolutely necessary to probe deeply and thoroughly investigate the case, and for that purpose unless the petitioner was handed over to the police custody, it would not be possible to track the other spread material links connecting the accused, muddamal liquor and other participants of the crime and to the said extent, he would be seriously handicapped and prejudiced in further investigation of the case.

(3.) Ignoring the aforesaid tale-tell facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate quite shockingly and surprisingly vide his Order dated 6-4-1992, rejected the remand application mainly on the ground that the muddamal liquor was already seized by the police and with a view to collect further necessary information from the accused in the matter of alleged offences, the police had enough time as he was not immediately produced before the Court, and therefore, it was not necessary to remand him to the police custody. Thereafter, it appears that on 7-4-1992 the leamed Magistrate released the petitioner on bail.