J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. All the applicants before me are permanent residents of Daman, a part of the Union Territory. They all claim to be engaged in the business of sale liquor in their respective wine shops on the strength of the licence issued in their favour by the competent authority. It is their case that they have been issued licence in the Form E - 25 A, by the administration of Daman and Diu (U.T.), Department of Excise, for the retail sale of foreign liquor/Indian made foreign liquor/country liquor.

3. All the applicants before me have been arraigned as accused in the different F.I. Rs. registered by the police of the State of Gujarat at the different Police Stations falling within the State of Gujarat. All the F.I. Rs. are for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The prayer in each of the applications is to quash the First Information Reports substantially on the ground that they all being the residents of Daman (U.T.) and engaged in the business of sale of liquor on the strength of a valid licence issued by the authority, they cannot be prosecuted with the other co-accused against whom F.I. Rs. have been registered in the police stations of the State of Gujarat. To put it in other words, according to the applicants, the Bombay Prohibition Act being a local law has no application so far as Daman is concerned. Unlike the Indian Penal Code, having an extra-territorial operation, the Bombay Prohibition Act applies only within the State of Gujarat and not to the Union Territory of Daman.

4. Let me take the applications one after the other.

5. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8934 of 2015 has been filed by one Kantilal Gopalbhai Tandel, the 'Manager' of M/s. Bhavik Wine Shop situated at Daman. He prays that the First Information Report registered with the Vapi Town Police Station, District: Valsad bearing C.R. No. III-1055 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(A)(E), 116(B) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act be quashed. This applicant has been shown as absconding till this date.

6. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8954 of 2015 has been filed by the same person referred to above namely, Kantilal Gopalbhai Tandel, the 'Manager' of M/s. Bhavik Wine Shop situated at Daman. He prays that the First Information Report registered with the Vapi Town Police Station, District: Valsad bearing C.R. No. III-1018 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(A)(E), 116(B) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act be quashed.

7. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 33839 of 2016 has been filed by one Manu @ Mano Manojbhai Ramanbhai Patel, a resident of Daman carrying on business of liquor. He prays to quash the First Information Report bearing C.R. No. III-370 of 2016 registered with the Valsad Rural Police Station, District: Valsad for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(B), 65(A)(E), 116(B), 81, 98 and 99 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

8. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 33878 of 2016 has been filed by the same person referred to above namely, Manu @ Mano Manojbhai Ramanbhai Patel, praying for quashing of the First Information Report bearing C.R. No. III-1219 of 2016 registered with the Pardi Police Station, District: Valsad for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(B), 65(A)(E), 116(B) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. He claims to the holder of a valid licence to sale liquor within the territory of Daman.

9. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 32279 of 2016 is filed by the applicants namely, Bhanuben Rameshbhai Patel and Rameshbhai Jagubhai Patel, husband and wife. They are also engaged in the business of sale of liquor. They pray for quashing of the First Information Report bearing C.R. No. III-1377 of 2016 registered with the Olpad P