1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1412 OF 2009 Raju S/o Bajirao Pawar and others Versus State of Maharashtra *** Mr. S. N. Gaikwad, Advocate i/b Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused/ applicant extensively. Rule. By consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Registration of offence under section 65 (f) and 83 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, vide F.I.R. III-38 of 2009 dated 20th April, 2009 and the earlier FIR III-26 of 2009 dated 10th April, 2009 is sought to be quashed. 3. The counsel informs that no offence is made out against the accused/ applicants. The land where the alleged distilling illicit liquor apparatus were taken charge, is an open space, rather public place 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. and does not belong to the accused/ applicant and hence no case could be made out against the accused/ applicants. 4. To substantiate his contention, the counsel took recourse to the judgment in the matter of "Antony Sauri Pillay V/s The State of Maharashtra" [1993 (1) Bom.C.R.153] and also to a head-note in the matter of "Gendlal V/s State." [Cri.R.A. No.201 of 71] dated 19th January, 1972. 5. The crux in the matter of Antony and Gendlal were that the room or the place from where the material for distillation of illicit liquor were taken charge, did not belong to the respective accused/ applicant. The accused was absconding and hence its benefit was given by the Courts. 6. These two judgments will not be applicable to the facts of present case where at the stage of investigation the counsel seeks quashment of two successive F.I.Rs. dated 10th April, 2009 and 20th 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. April, 2009. 7. The terminology in section 65 (f) illustrate whoever in contravention of provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order made or of any licence, pass, permit or authorization granted thereunder uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still utensils, implements or apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant [other than opium], shall on conviction, be punished for each such offence rigorous imprisonment or fine. At this stage of the matter, in the first F.I.R. dated 10th April, 2009 I find that Bajirao Sitaram Pawar was nabbed at the place while his son Raju Bajirao Pawar fled. It is pertinent to note that police were knowing and acquainted to the accused. The raid was based on the discrete information received about the illicit distillation of the country liquor. The subsequent F.I.R. dated 20th April, 2009 explained as to, in what situation the accused Baba and Raju were found. 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. They sensed presence of the police and started to flee, and they were chased, however, could not be nabbed immediately. The police in the subsequent raid seized material worth Rs.35,000/- which include apparatus used for distillation with joggery and the raw material including chemicals. At this stage of the matter, when there is primary evidence against the accused, including the Panchanama of seizure of the goods, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. does not disclose any case against the accused / applicant. The role of the accused/ applicant is primarily indicted. Hence, quashment in terms of section 482 Cr.P.C. not warranted. Application rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:23/09/2009. ans/1412