Supreme Court clarifies definition of ‘public place’ under Bihar Excise Act: Satvinder Singh vs State of Bihar (2019) INSC 594

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 01 July 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 594
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a private vehicle traveling on a public road be considered a ‘public place’ for the purpose of prosecuting individuals for alcohol consumption? The Supreme Court of India tackled this question in a recent case, examining the nuances of the Bihar Excise Act. This judgment clarifies the definition of ‘public place’ in the context of alcohol prohibition laws in Bihar. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

On 25th June 2016, the appellants, all members of the Rotary Club, were traveling from Giridih, Jharkhand, to Patna, Bihar, for a Rotary Club meeting. They were traveling in a vehicle bearing registration number JH-11K/8146. At the Rajauli Check Post in the Nawada district of Bihar, their vehicle was stopped for a routine check by Sachidanand Bharati, a Sub-Inspector of Excise. Although no liquor or incriminating materials were found in the vehicle, the appellants were subjected to a breathalyzer test. According to the prosecution, the test indicated the presence of alcohol in the appellants’ systems. Consequently, the appellants were arrested and detained for two days. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the same day, leading to the registration of Excise Case No. 316 of 2016. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, took cognizance of the offense on 30th July 2016. The appellants then filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash the cognizance order. The High Court of Patna dismissed this application on 16th February 2018, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, took cognizance of the offense under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, on 30th July 2016. The appellants then filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Patna, seeking to quash the order of cognizance. The High Court dismissed this application on 16th February 2018. Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the appellants filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, and its subsequent amendments. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(17) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915: Defines “place” as including “building, house, shop, booth, vessel, raft, vehicle or tent”.
• Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016: Defines “Public Place” as “any place to which public have access, whether as a matter of right or not and includes all places visited by general public and also includes any open space.”
• Section 19(4) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (as amended): Empowers the State Government to prohibit the manufacture, bottling, distribution, sale, possession, or consumption of intoxicants in the State.
• Section 53 of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016: Specifies penalties for consumption of liquor in a public place. Specifically, Section 53(a) states: “Whoever, in contravention of this Act or the rules, notification or order made there under – (a) consumes liquor in a public place or an unauthorized place…shall be punishable…”
• Section 2(53) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: Defines “place” as including “building, house, shop, boat, booth, vessel, raft, vehicle, conveyance or tent enclosure.”
• Section 2(54) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: Defines “Public Place” as “any place to which public has access whether as a matter of right or not and includes all places visited by public and also includes any open space or any transport, whether public or private.”
• Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: Provides for penalties for consumption of liquor. It states: “Whoever, in contravention of this Act or the rules, notification or order made there under – (a) consumes liquor or intoxicant in any place; or (b) is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness at any place…shall be punishable…”

The Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, was enacted to implement the State’s new excise policy aimed at total prohibition. The subsequent Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, further refined these definitions and penalties to enforce complete prohibition.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their private vehicle could not be considered a ‘public place’ under Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. They emphasized that the definition of ‘public place’ in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, specifically included “any transport, whether public or private,” which was absent in the earlier amendment. This, they contended, indicated that the legislature did not intend to include private vehicles in the definition of ‘public place’ under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
• The appellants submitted that the offense under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, requires the consumption of liquor in a public place. They argued that the word “consumes” should be interpreted in the present continuous tense, implying that the act of consumption must occur in the public place. They further argued that since no liquor was found in their vehicle, the ingredient of the offense that liquor is consumed was not satisfied.

State of Bihar’s Arguments:

• The State contended that Bihar is a state where prohibition is imposed, and anyone violating the prohibition should be treated as having committed an offense.
• The State argued that the appellants’ vehicle was intercepted on a public road, thus satisfying the requirement of the offense being committed in a public place.
• The State submitted that the ingredients of Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, were fully satisfied, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not erred in taking cognizance.
• The State also referred to a notification dated 05.04.2016 imposing total prohibition, which was challenged in the High Court. The High Court set aside the notification, but this order was stayed by the Supreme Court, thus restoring the legal position as existed after the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:

• Whether a private vehicle traveling on a public road constitutes a ‘public place’ under Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
• Whether the act of ‘consumption’ of liquor under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, requires the act to occur in the State of Bihar.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Manikandan vs. State of Kerala, (1999) 2 KLT 592, Kerala High Court: This case dealt with the interpretation of ‘public place’ under the Kerala Abkari Act. The Kerala High Court held that a private car parked on the road could not be treated as a public place. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the Kerala judgment was based on the specific statutory provisions of Kerala and that the relevant section was later amended to include private vehicles.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(17) of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915: Defined “place” to include “vehicle”.
• Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016: Defined “Public Place”.
• Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016: Provided penalty for consumption of liquor in a public place.
• Section 2(54) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: Defined “Public Place” to include “any transport, whether public or private”.
• Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016: Provided penalty for consumption of liquor.

[TABLE] of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Manikandan vs. State of Kerala, (1999) 2 KLT 592, Kerala High Court*: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the Kerala judgment was based on different statutory provisions and that the relevant section was later amended.

The Court held that the definition of ‘place’ in the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, includes a “vehicle”. The phrase “any place to which public have access” in Section 2(17A) includes a private vehicle on a public road because the public has an opportunity to approach it. The court observed that the omission of public conveyance in the definition of Section 2(17A) indicates that the distinction between public and private conveyance was done away with in the statutory amendment. The Court also held that the action of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar to constitute the offense under Section 53(a). The court stated that a person who consumes liquor in a different state cannot be penalized unless there is evidence of consumption in Bihar.

The Court observed that the word ‘consume’ is a verb transitive and the action of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar. The Court stated that a person who consumes liquor in a different state cannot be penalized unless there is evidence of consumption in Bihar.

The Court stated, “When the word ‘consumes’ is followed by liquor, the action denoted by verb passes over from the doer to object i.e. liquor to constitute the offences within the meaning of Section 53(a). The action of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar.”

The Court further stated, “Whether charge that consumption of liquor has taken place within the State of Bihar is made out in the facts of the present case are questions which need to be decided by the learned Magistrate after looking into the materials brought on record by means of the chargesheet.”

The Court also noted that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, introduced a new offense under Section 37(b), which penalizes being found drunk at any place, even if the consumption occurred outside Bihar. This offense was not present in the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the statutory provisions of the Bihar Excise Act and its amendments. The Court focused on the definition of ‘public place’ and the act of ‘consumption’ within the specific context of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. The court emphasized that the definition of ‘place’ included ‘vehicle’ and the phrase ‘any place to which public have access’ included a private vehicle on a public road. The court also noted the absence of the specific inclusion of “any transport, whether public or private” in the definition of ‘public place’ in the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, and the subsequent inclusion of the same in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and held that the definition of ‘public place’ in the earlier amendment also included private vehicles. The court also emphasized that the act of consumption has to happen within the State of Bihar to constitute an offense under Section 53(a).

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• A private vehicle traveling on a public road can be considered a ‘public place’ under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
• The act of consuming liquor must occur within the State of Bihar to constitute an offense under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
• The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, introduced a new offense of being found drunk at any place, which was not present in the earlier amendment.
• The judgment clarifies the scope of ‘public place’ in the context of alcohol prohibition laws in Bihar.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants are at liberty to file an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate is to decide the application after considering the materials on record, in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a private vehicle traveling on a public road is considered a ‘public place’ for the purposes of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. The judgment also clarified that the act of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar to constitute an offense under Section 53(a). This judgment clarifies the definition of ‘public place’ in the context of alcohol prohibition laws in Bihar. The Court also distinguished the judgment in Manikandan vs. State of Kerala, (1999) 2 KLT 592, Kerala High Court, and held that the definition of “public place” under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, also included private vehicles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Satvinder Singh vs. State of Bihar clarifies that a private vehicle on a public road falls within the definition of a ‘public place’ under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. The Court also held that the act of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar to constitute an offense under Section 53(a). This ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of alcohol prohibition laws in Bihar and provides a clear interpretation of ‘public place’ in this context.