The police authorities have the power to investigate and take cognizance of offences under the Prohibition Act, in accordance with the provisions of the Police Act and the Cr.P.C. The provisions of the Prohibition Act and the Police Act do not override the provisions of the Cr.P.C., which is the primary legislation governing criminal procedure in India. The scope of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to evaluating material documents on record to determine the existence of sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused, and the Court cannot appreciate evidence or examine materials whose acceptability is a matter for trial.

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Basic challenge in all these Petitions is to raid on or stoppage of vehicles transporting liquor by police personal functioning under Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Police Act” for short), as it is the commodity regulated by Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Prohibition Act” for short). According to petitioners, only Prohibition Officer or the staff of State Excise Department functioning under the Prohibition Act, in terms thereof, can undertake any such exercise. In view of this submission, prayer made in all the writ petitions is to quash and set aside the F.I.R. registered by police authorities. Home Department of State of Maharashtra, Superintendent of Police, concerned Police Station are joined as respondents. Similarly, Commissioner of State Excise is also impleaded as party respondent.

2. As a question of law is placed for consideration, individual facts are not very material and it will be apt to deal with the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing in the matter.

3. Shri Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri S. Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No.452/2012 states that the police authorities on 26.08.2012 laid a trap and searched motor vehicle bearing registration No.MH 32/A-2595, because of secret intelligence received by it. During search, police authorities claimed that total 525 bottles of country liquor packed in 11 boxes were found by them and accordingly a seizure panchnama was prepared. Three persons found in the motor vehicle came to be arrested by the local crime branch, Wardha, on the charge that they smuggled the liquor illegally upto Hinganghat for its sale. It is not in dispute that since 1975, entire Wardha District with its Tahsil Hinganghat are declared “Dry Area”. After trap and in view of the seizure, an offence under Sections 65[a][e], 77[a] of the Prohibition Act, has been registered against the accused persons vide Crime No.7314/2012. Prosecution claimed that these persons were not having the transport permit, for carrying country liquor bottles. Prosecution claimed that the investigation reveals bringing of bottles from a liquor shop of petitioner Jaiswal. It was also found that said Jaiswal used to transport liquor bottles to Wardha District, with the help of arrested accused persons. Investigation further revealed that country liquor bottles were illegally smuggled/transported by said Jaiswal and arrested accused persons into the area of Wardha District. Police Authorities claimed that after getting this information, police went in search of Jaiswal who runs a liquor bar at Butibori, but he managed to abscond.

4. Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel submits that these allegations do not make out any offence under Prohibition Act against the present petitioner/applicant. He also invites attention to the provisions of Section 83 of the Prohibition Act to demonstrate that no case to attract that section has been made out. Our attention has been also invited to Section 2[16], as also 2[20] and Section 2[36] of the Prohibition Act, which defines phrases like “Export”, “Import” and “State”. Section 147 of the Prohibition Act is also read out to urge that it is not applicable.

5. Argument is, transporting liquor from Nagpur to Wardha does not meet ingradients of Section 65[a] and petitioner is having licenced shop in neighbouring district i.e. Nagpur District, therefore, when he sales the liquor to a third person, there is no offence made out. Such purchaser may carry liquor any where and no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner for his acts.

6. Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel submits that at the instance of police authorities, FIR No.7314/2012 under Sections 65[a] [e], 77[a] of Prohibition Act and Section 3/1[1], 51, 181,11, 177 and 184 of Motor Vehicles Act came to be registered against the persons who were found transporting the liquor. It i