1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'the Code'], is filed by the petitioner with the following relief:
"Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction and be pleased to quash the F.I.R. Registered as Prohibition C.R. No.5285 of 2007 with Danilimda police station so far as the petitioner is concerned."
2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole evidence against the petitioner is a statement of co-accused which is not admissible in evidence. That the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that the petitioner is falsely implication in the offence punishable under Sections 66(b), 65(a)(e) and 116 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
3 The above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner seen in the context of the evidence on record to the effect that a huge quantity of liquor was seized along with relevant muddamal and evidence available against the petitioner including the statement of co-accused, are to be considered by the learned Magistrate at the trial in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act and more particularly when the competent Court is seized with the criminal case arising out of the complaint lodged, at this stage, the Court exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code would not go into the arena of defence. This petition is misconceived and is rejected summarily.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top