BAJRANGLAL PARIKH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of an offence, under Section 188, IPC, on the basis of a 'police report', submitted in terms of Section 173(2), Cr.PC, is the subject of controversy in the present cases.

(2.) By order, dated 21.9.2007, passed, under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), by the District Magistrate, Jorhat, the use, import, storage, transportation and sale of crude molasses (treacle or rotten gur) was, in the district of Jorhat, prohibited, the order having been passed on the ground that molasses (treacle or rotten gur) is the main raw material for production of illicit liquor in Jorhat district. The order also made it clear that any violation of the order would be punishable under Section 188, IPC. Following the publication of the said prohibitory order, Inspector of Excise, Jorhat, seized, on 27.9.2007, a large number of tins of lali gur, lying in the godowns of the employers of the present petitioners, on the ground that storage of the said lali gur amounted to disobedience of the said prohibitory order and, therefore, punishable under Section 188, IPC. An information, in writing, having been lodged, in this regard, by the Inspector of Excise alleging to the effect that the petitioners had, by storing lali gur, violated and disobeyed the said prohibitory order, Jorhat P.S. Case No. 598/2007 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1188/2007) under Section 188, IPC was registered against the petitioners. Following the seizures so made and the case so registered, the petitioners were arrested and, in course of time, released on bail. In course of time, the police, on completion of investigation, laid a charge-sheet, under Section 188, IPC, for prosecution of the petitioners.

(3.) By making a writ application, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 5208/2007, the petitioners challenged the legality of the said prohibitory order, dated 30.9.2007. By order, dated 5.10.2007, the High Court suspended the said prohibitory order. In terms of the directions, so given, the prohibitory order stands till date suspended. The alleged violation of the said prohibitory order, however, took place, in the present case, on 27.9.2007, i.e., before the interim directions, suspending the said prohibitory order, was passed.