Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2530 (MAD)

Senthil Kumar v. State by Inspector of Police

2009-07-21

C.S.KARNAN

body2009
Judgment : The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.16966 of 2005 to call for the records in Crime No.51 of 2005 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. 2. The petitioner has contended that he is a driver and an employee of Deekay Exports Ltd., and the company has a factory at Madukarai, within the limits of Union Territory of Pondicherry. On 13.04.2005, the Government of Pondicherry, through Deputy Commissioner (Excise) in proceedings No.E-2/2003/6984/2005-2006 dated 13.04.2005 issued a permit for release of I.M.F.L goods ie., 30 boxes of 750 m.l. bottles and 300 boxes of 180 m.l. bottles of green leaf grape brandy from the ware house of the factory to the wholesale godown for local sales at Pondicherry. In the said permit, route for the transport vehicle has also been prescribed via Mettupakkam, Embalam, Villianur, Bharathi Street godown. 3. As per permit, the goods were transported on 15.04.2005. The vehicle has to travel from Madukarai factory to Pondicherry Bharathi Street godown. The distance between the two places is 33 Km and after Mettupakkam, the vehicle has to cross over the Tamil Nadu border for a distance of 1 ½ Km, consisting of three hamlets namely N.Manavalli, Nallathur and M.M.Kuppam. Thereafter the vehicle has to pass through the other places as prescribed in the route. On 15.04.2005, at 05.10 p.m, the respondent, at the Nallathur checkpost in Tamil Nadu Border stopped the vehicle and after a check, they confiscated all the materials including the vehicle bearing No.TN-22-C-9135, Tata 407 and registered a case in Crime No. 51 of 2005, for the alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Sections 32(A)(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w. Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Liquor (Transmit) Act, 1962. On the registration of the complaint, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.51 of 2005. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the First Information Report registered is a clear case of abuse of power by the police. Further, the petitioner transported the goods, as per permit issued by the Government of Pondicherry. Further, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against under Section 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for a transport of liquor, since the confiscated liquor was not transported from one place to another place within Tamil Nadu. Further, the petitioner transported the goods, as per permit issued by the Government of Pondicherry. Further, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against under Section 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for a transport of liquor, since the confiscated liquor was not transported from one place to another place within Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, it is stated in the First Information Report that liquor bottles were transported from Madukarai to Pondy through Tamil Nadu and such transportation does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 3(20) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Further, the learned counsel contended that mere non-obtainment of necessary transit permits from the State of Tamil Nadu under rules 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Transit) Rules, 1982, cannot by itself, be a conclusive factor to enable the respondent to so confiscate and register the First Information Report overlooking the bonafide of the petitioner in obtaining the transport permit from Madukarai Warehouse to Pondicherry Godown on 13.04.2005. Further, the learned counsel submitted that no criminal offence was made out and ingredients of the offences are lacking in the impugned First Information Report. 5. Further, the learned counsel, supporting the petitioners case, has cited the following cases, (1) 1998 (1) MWN (Cr.) 278, (M/s. Taurus Wines represented by its Proprietor M.Dharmaraj ..vs.. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri) (2) The Madras Law Journal Reports – (Criminal) Vol.X, 761 (M.P.Govindaraj, In re) 6. The respondent has filed detailed counter statements in the above petition stating that on 15.04.2005, at about 17.10 hrs, at Nallathur Checkpost, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thokananpakkam Police Station and his party were in the process of conducting vehicle check in the presence of Inspector of Police, Rettichavady Circle. At that time, the petitioners vehicle was intercepted and enquiry was made, when the petitioner told them that the liquor bottles were being transported from Madukarai to Pondicherry godown through Tamil Nadu area. After due verification, it was found that the transport of liquor bottles have not been properly authorised by the Tamil Nadu Permit required to be obtained from the Assistant Commissioner concerned. Hence, the driver was arrested and the contrabands were confiscated. The bottles were being transported from Madukarai to Pondicherry State (via) Nallathur without any valid permit issued by the Tamil Nadu Government. Hence, the said criminal case was issued against the petitioner. Hence, the driver was arrested and the contrabands were confiscated. The bottles were being transported from Madukarai to Pondicherry State (via) Nallathur without any valid permit issued by the Tamil Nadu Government. Hence, the said criminal case was issued against the petitioner. Further, nowhere has it been stated in the permit that on 13.04.2005, that the transport route includes the part of Tamil Nadu area for which the authorities in Pondicherry have no power to direct such transport link through Tamil Nadu area. 7. It is not mandatory to look for the permit of licence alone issued by the Pondicheery State when the transport was routed through the Tamil Nadu area for which the permit from the State authorities are required. Further, from the records and available evidence, the accused driver and his lorry had deviated from path authorised duly, by entering into Tamil Nadu area without any valid licence or permit for entry, from the State authorities. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Pondicherry argued the case for their respective parties. The Court, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for both parties and also gone through the contents of the petition and counter statement/affidavit, is of the view that trial is necessary in the said Crime No.51 of 2005 on the file of the respondent police in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.