0.3172308201162687

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS sd/-

Approved for Reporting Yes No

No

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 – State.

2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11210015230130 of 2023 lodged before the D.C.B. Police Station, District: Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 98(2), 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, so also all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Zamir Z. Shaikh appearing for the applicant-accused and learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the respondent no.1 – State.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Zamir Z. Shaikh appearing for the present applicant-accused has submitted that the FIR lodged by the complainant is palpably false. There is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicant-accused with the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the complainant has made general allegations against the applicant-accused, and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant- accused. He has further submitted that the name of the present applicant has been revealed from the statement of the co- accused, namely, Mohammad Sarvar Mohammad Siddik Shaikh, who was found in conscious possession of the liquor, and except the statement of the co-accused, there is no incriminating evidence on record against the present applicant- accused.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Zamir Z. Shaikh has submitted that the impugned FIR, even if it is taken at its face value, could not even establish the offence as alleged. He has submitted that the present applicant was not found in conscious possession of the liquor, and he was not the owner of the vehicle, from which, the liquor was found and seized. Learned advocate has further submitted that the present applicant has nothing to do with the persons, who were found in conscious possession of the liquor and there is no evidence of any call records produced by the prosecution to suggest that the present applicant and the accused persons were in contact. He has, therefore, urged that considering the above, the present application may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set- aside.

6. Learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the present application and has submitted that it is true that the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, however, as per Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the statement of the co- accused would be relevant for the purpose of investigation since it gives a clue or a piece of information to inquire or investigate as to the role played by the accused in the commission of the offence, and if any satisfactory and reliable evidence or material is found during the course of the investigation in support of the said statement given by the co-accused, certainly, the person against whom the said evidence is available, would be liable for prosecution. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, learned APP has urged that the present application may not be entertained and the same may be rejected.

7. Having perused the entire materials on record, it prima facie appears that the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of the statement of the co- accused.

The Investigating Officer is present before this Court with the original papers. While going through the same, it appears that except the statement of the co-accused, there is no connecting material found to implicate the present applicant in the alleged offence. It also appears that the present applicant was not found in consc