Dismissed

D.Shaji, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Feb 2018CRL OP(MD)/2053/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashment of proceedings for possessing poisonous brandy under Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. Court held that statutory presumption applies, burden is on petitioner, and case cannot be quashed at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed. Trial Court directed to dispose of matter within four months.

D.Shaji, Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶5

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2053 of 2018 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.891 & 892 of 2018

¶6

D.Shaji ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.158 of 2017) ... 1^st Respondent/ Complainant

¶9

2.Mr.Sivathanu ... 2^nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge sheet in S.C.No.237 of 2017, on the file of Sub Court, Kuzhithurai and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan For R1 : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, to quash the proceeding in S.C.No.237 of 2017, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, (Sub Court, Kuzhithurai).

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

¶15

The Police party was on Patrol, based on the secret information on 17.02.2017, when they were at Kannumamudu Odalivilai Junction near M.S.Broilers at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioner, who was in possession of two litre green colour bottle in his hand and has tried to hide the bottle and escape from the place. The Police party caught him and seized the bottle from him, they have found one litre brandy in it and a poisonous odour emanated from that and hence the petitioner has been arrested and subsequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.158 of 2017, under Section 4(1-A) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

¶18

¶19

submitted that the petitioner is a license holder for collecting empty bottles/TASMAC shop No.4821, which is run by the Government. He further stated that due to the business enmity at the instigation of private bar operator at Kerala State, the first respondent Police has registered in this case, against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner was in possession of the poisonous brandy for the purpose of selling to others and hence the proceeding in S.C.No.237 of 2017, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, (Sub Court, Kuzhithurai) has to be quashed.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of one litre brandy containing some poisonous materials and hence the said brandy has been seized and the sample also has been taken and the same has been sent to the laboratory and the report received from the said laboratory. The report reveals that the said sample contains atropine of 6.4 mg in 100 ml and hence a charge sheet has been filed under Section 4(1A) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. He further submitted that as per the Section 4 (2) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, the presumption is against the petitioner herein and he has to discharge the said burden and therefore the case cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶21

5.A presumption is there against the petitioner herein under Section 4(2) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. It is for the petitioner to discharge the said burden and therefore at this stage, the case cannot be quashed.

¶22

6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. After passing orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction may be given to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter at early.

¶23

7.Considering his requests, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the above matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(W) /True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶29

¶30

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan, Advocate, SR.No. 47710

¶32

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2053 of 2018 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.891 & 892 of 2018 12.02.2018

¶33

sss KK/JC/14.03.2018/SAR-2/3P-5C

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D.Shaji, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Shaji, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jinna Mohammed Vs the Inspector of Police

Semraj, Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Rajeshwari, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chandru Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Syed Abuthahir, Vs the Inspector of Police

Manoj @ Monojkumar, Vs the Inspector of Police