In a landmark judgement the Supreme Court overruled a 1999 Kerala High Court judgement which said that a private car is an exclusively private space on public road.
Delivering the judgement in the Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that Consumption of liquor even in a private vehicle on public road is as good as drinking at a public place.
In their judgement the Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Patna High Court to quash the FIR filed against the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The appellant Satvinder Singh and others were returning back from a Rotary Club meeting in their car from Giridih in Jharkhand to Patna. Their vehicle was stopped at the Rajauli Check Post at the Bihar Jharkhand border for a routine checkup.
They were subjected to breath analyser test which confirmed the presence of alcohol though the police did not find any liquor inside the vehicle. Based on this, the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 53(a) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Nawada took cognisance of the case. The appellants approached the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the FIR but when the court dismissed their plea they moved the Supreme Court.
The petitioner Satvinder Singh, through his lawyer, Rahul Bhandari challenged the Patna High Court under Bihar’s 2016 prohibition law because he was not found drunk in Bihar.
Regarding the contention that the offence under Section 53(a) was not made out, the court noted that as per Section 53(a) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 2016, the action of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar. A person who consumes liquor in a different State cannot be fastened with a penalty under Section 53(a) unless there is some evidence to prove that consumption of liquor by the accused has taken place in the State of Bihar.
But the court observed that this position has changed now with the enactment of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016. As per this Act, another category of offences have been included in Section 37 which provides for a situation explained as: “is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness at any place”. In the judgement Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph said that the 2016 Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act did away with the difference between public and private conveyance.
This in other words means that any activity like smoking or drinking that is not allowed in a public space, is also not permissible in a private car that comes under the definition of ‘public space’ on a public road.
Going a step further the judgement made it clear that even if a person consumes liquor outside the state borders but enters the territory of Bihar in a state of drunkenness, he is liable to be penalised under Section 37(b) of the 2016 Prohibition Act.
“We have to further take into notice that private vehicle of the appellants was intercepted when it was on the public road. When private vehicle is passing through a public road it cannot be accepted that public have no access,”
“It is true that public may not have access to private vehicle as matter of right but definitely public have opportunity to approach the private vehicle while it is on the public road. Hence, we are not able to accept the submission that vehicle in which appellants are travelling is not covered by definition of ‘public place’ as defined in Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016,” the verdict read.
Thus, as per Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 even if a person consumes liquor outside the State of Bihar and enters into the territory of Bihar and is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness, he can be charged with offences under Section 37(b).
Bihar had imposed total prohibition on all forms of liquor in April 2016. The state legislature had enacted Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, to enforce, implement and promote complete prohibition of liquor and intoxicants in the state.
