9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, as amended by the M.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2000. 2. Validity of the prohibition on anticipatory bail for offences under Section 34(a) and (b) and Section 49-A of the Act. 3. Alleged violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting the amendment. 5. The extent of judicial power in granting anticipatory bail under the amended provisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, asserting that it prohibited courts from entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that the provision was enacted to curb the illegal trade and smuggling of liquor, which posed significant dangers to public health and safety. The court emphasized that the State Legislature has the authority to regulate the trade in intoxicants, as established in several Supreme Court judgments, and found that the provision was enacted within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. Validity of the Prohibition on Anticipatory Bail: The court examined whether the prohibition on anticipatory bail under Section 59-A(i) was justified. It was argued that the provision conferred unbridled power on the investigating authorities and was arbitrary. However, the court held that the provision was not arbitrary, as it specifically targeted serious offences involving large quantities of liquor and spurious liquor, which have severe implications for public health and safety. The court found that the provision had inherent guidance and was not unreasonable, as it aimed to address the malady of illicit liquor trade and its consequences. 3. Alleged Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner contended that the prohibition on anticipatory bail violated the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. The court, however, referred to several Supreme Court decisions which held that there is no fundamental right to trade in intoxicants and that the State has the authority to regulate or even prohibit such trade. The court concluded that the restriction on anticipatory bail was a reasonable measure to prevent the misuse of bail provisions by individuals involved in serious offences under the Excise Act. 4. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature: The respondents argued that the amendment was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and did not transgress any constitutional provisions. The court agreed, noting that the State has the power to regulate the trade in intoxicants and to enact provisions that ensure public health and safety. The court found that the amendment was a valid exercise of legislative power aimed at addressing the specific issues related to illicit liquor trade. 5. Extent of Judicial Power in Granting Anticipatory Bail: The court acknowledged that while Section 59-A(i) restricted the grant of anticipatory bail, it did not completely oust the jurisdiction of the courts. The court clarified that an accused could still approach the competent court to demonstrate that the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 49-A or Section 34(a) and (b) were not made out. If the court found that the offence did not fall within the ambit of Section 59-A(i), it could entertain the application for anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that the provision did not prevent judicial scrutiny but rather imposed a specific condition to address serious offences involving large quantities of liquor and spurious liquor. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutionality of Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915. The court found that the provision was a reasonable measure to address the serious issues related to illicit liquor trade and its consequences on public health and safety. The court also clarified that while the provision restricted anticipatory bail, it did not completely oust the jurisdiction of the courts to examine the applicability of the offence under the specified sections.
|
