This case summary focuses on a decision by the High Court of Judicature at Patna concerning a criminal case involving the illegal transportation and sale of liquor in Bihar, a state where alcohol is prohibited. The court had to determine whether the police were justified in registering two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) for what appeared to be a single series of events. The judgment, delivered on March 1, 2024, by Honourable Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, addresses important questions about the registration of FIRs, the scope of police investigation, and the rights of the accused.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from two incidents that occurred on February 4 and 5, 2017, within the jurisdictions of two different police stations: Khusrupur and Jurawanpur, both in the Vaishali district of Bihar.
Khusrupur Case: On February 4, 2017, police officers on night patrol near Hardas Bigha Petrol Pump received information from the Special Task Force (STF) about a syndicate involved in selling liquor. The police intercepted a security van and a Tata Indigo car, recovering liquor from both vehicles and arresting several individuals: Sumit Bajaj, Mayank Bajaj, Ranjeet Kumar, Ajayant, Anil Kumar Jaiswal, and Santosh Chaudhary.
Jurawanpur Case: Based on information obtained during the investigation of the Khusrupur case, it was revealed that a large quantity of liquor was stored at the house of Bindeshwar Rai in Virpur, under the jurisdiction of Jurawanpur Police Station. On February 5, 2017, a joint raid by Khusrupur and Jurawanpur police, along with the STF, led to the recovery of a significant amount of liquor from Rai's house.
The Legal Challenge:
Ranjit Kumar @ Guddu, one of the accused, filed a petition in the Patna High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR registered at Jurawanpur Police Station (Jurawanpur P. S. Case No. 04 of 2017). He argued that this FIR was invalid because it related to the same series of events (the same transaction) for which an FIR had already been registered at Khusrupur Police Station (Khusrupur P. S. Case No. 21 of 2017).
Arguments Presented in Court:
Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel argued that the two FIRs pertained to the same transaction. They cited precedents, including the case of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, to assert that there cannot be a second FIR for the same offense or occurrence. The petitioner's counsel contended that all the actions, from the initial interception of the vehicles to the subsequent recovery of liquor from Bindeshwar Rai's house, were part of a single, continuous operation.
Respondent's Argument: The state's counsel argued that the two FIRs were distinct, involving different informants, accused persons, and locations, and therefore, were legally valid. They referred to cases like M/s Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. to support their position that a second FIR is permissible if it relates to a separate incident or an offense of a different magnitude.
The Court's Decision:
The High Court, after reviewing the facts and the legal precedents, ruled in favor of the petitioner. Justice Chaudhuri observed that a second FIR is permissible only when the allegations are "absolutely distinct and separate" from the first FIR.
In this case, the court found that the recovery of liquor in Jurawanpur was a direct consequence of information obtained during the investigation of the Khusrupur case. The entire sequence of events – the transportation of liquor, the interception of the vehicles, and the subsequent raid – constituted a single, continuous transaction.
The court stated:
"The entire incident and transaction took place in one transaction and by way of transportation and illegal delivery of IMFL in the State of Bihar, the accused persons committed same offence under the provisions of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016."
Therefore, the High Court quashed the second FIR (Jurawanpur P.S. Case 04 of 2017). However, it directed that the evidence and findings from the Jurawanpur case should be included in the investigation of the Khusrupur case (Khusrupur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2017).
Significance of the Judgment:
This judgment is significant for several reasons:
Upholds the Principle Against Double Jeopardy: The ruling reinforces the legal principle that a person should not be prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense. By preventing a second FIR for the same transaction, the court protected the accused from facing multiple trials and potential convictions for what was essentially a single criminal act.
Clarifies the Scope of FIRs: The judgment clarifies the circumstances under which multiple FIRs can be registered. It establishes that if different parts of the same transaction occur in different locations, only one FIR should be registered, and all related evidence should be investigated under that single FIR.
Emphasizes the Importance of a Fair Investigation: The court's decision ensures that the investigation is conducted in a cohesive and coordinated manner. By consolidating the investigation under a single FIR, it reduces the risk of conflicting evidence, duplication of effort, and potential prejudice to the accused.
Reinforces the Rights of the Accused: This ruling protects the fundamental rights of the accused by preventing the initiation of multiple legal proceedings based on the same set of facts.
Conclusion:
In summary, the Patna High Court's decision in this case reaffirms the importance of adhering to established legal principles in criminal investigations. The court's ruling ensures that the police act within the boundaries of the law, that the rights of the accused are protected, and that the investigation and prosecution of offenses are conducted in a fair and just manner. The judgment serves as a reminder that multiple FIRs for the same criminal transaction are generally not permissible and that all aspects of such a transaction should be investigated under a single FIR.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjNjQ5IzIwMTcjMSNO-evZF0rzQBLo=
0 Comments