The Supreme Court has restrained the Madras High Court from examining the legal possibility of prosecuting the State government for the charge of abetment in every offence committed by individuals under the influence of alcohol. It has effaced from the records a judicial decision taken by the High Court to delve deep into the issue.
Allowing an appeal preferred by the State, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari said: “After perusing the impugned judgement and, in particular, the observations made in paragraph six onwards, we have no manner of doubt that the learned judge exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“Once the application for anticipatory bail was adjudicated, the other issues (regarding possibility of prosecuting the State) referred to in the impugned paragraphs, in our opinion, were beyond the scope of the application and being extraneous any discussion thereon was avoidable. To observe sobriety, we say no more for the present.”
The judges agreed with senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Additional Advocate General Balaji Srinivasan that the single judge of the High Court ought not to have treated the anticipatory bail petition filed by a litigant as a virtual referendum on the liquor policy of the State and pass orders as if he was hearing a public interest litigation petition under writ jurisdiction.
They erased all observations made by the High Court judge who had said: “Every other day, this court, with pain, encounters various offences committed under the influence of alcohol. This court can take judicial notice of the increasing number of motor accidents due to drunken driving, murders, sexual abuse and child abuse committed under the influence of alcohol.
“In some cases, the fathers themselves misbehave with their daughters. These incidents are bound to go up in the graph unless the government changes its policy.” The judge said, he was aware of the settled law that courts cannot interfere with policy decisions of the State, yet he added that they also could not be mute spectators to increase in crimes due to alcohol.
Though the definition of ‘abetment’ under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure was restricted, the judge said: “The traditional outlook of the offence may not encompass within itself the issue now attempted to be addressed. However, the law has to evolve and it can never remain static and become stale. Law has to be dynamic.”
Passing the order on March 26 this year, he had decided to give an opportunity to the State to make its submissions before he passed final orders on the issue. However, the government took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court which initially stayed the operation of the High Court’s order on April 8 and passed the final judgement now.
