http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SHARDA PRASAD SINHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/12/1976

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. GUPTA, A.C. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1754            1977 SCR  (2) 357  1977 SCC  (1) 505  CITATOR INFO :  F          1983 SC  67  (9)  R          1990 SC 494  (4)

ACT:             Inherent  powers of the High Court to quash  proceedings         taking  cognizance of the offence when the  allegations  set         out in a complaint or the chargesheet do not constitute  any         offence--Criminal  Procedure Code 1973 (Act 2 of  1974),  s.         482.

HEADNOTE:             Employing  or permitting to employ any person under  the         age  of  18 years or any woman in any part of  the  licensed         premises  and in contravention of s. 25 constitutes  an  of-         fence u/s. 54(1)(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act 1915.         Under s. 25(2) it is an offence when a woman is employed  or         permitted  to  be  employed, by a person  licensed  to  sell         foreign  liquor, and the employment of such woman should  be         in any part of the premises in which such liquor is consumed         by  the public.  Section 57(c) of the Act provides  a  penal         fine  upto Rs.500/- for an action done by a licensed  holder         wilfully  in  breach of the conditions of  the  license  for         which no penalty is prescribed elsewhere in the Act.             On  a complaint from the Assistant Commissioner,  Excise         that  the appellant at the time of the raid on the New  Year         Eve  did not have any permission of the competent  authority         for conducting a cabaret dance in the premises of  Bankipore         Club,  Patna (admittedly the holder of "OFF’ foreign  liquor         licence),  the SubDivisional Magistrate, Patna  took  cogni-         zance  of the offences complained, namely, violation  of  s.         54(1)(a)  read with s. 25(a) and s. 57(c) of the  Bihar  and         Orissa  Excise Act 1915.  A revision filed under s.  482  of         the  Criminal  Procedure Code 1973 on the  ground  that  the         allegations in the complaint did not constitute any  offence         warranting the cognizance was dismissed in limine.         On appeal by special leave to this Court,             HELD: Where the allegations set out in the complaint  or         the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is compe-         tent to the High Court exercising its inherent  jurisdiction         under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to quash         the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       offence.  [359B]             The  instant case was clearly one where the  allegations         contained  in the complaint did not constitute  any  offence         and  the  Sub-Divisional Magistrate was in error  in  taking         cognizance of it and the High Court also ought not to  have,         in  the  circumstances,  rejected the  application   of  the         appellant  for  quashing  the order  of  the  Sub-Divisional         Magistrate.  [360E]             No offence under s. 54(1)(a) could be said to have  been         committed  on the allegations contained in the complaint  in         the  absence  of specific allegation of  the  two  essential         ingredients  of the offence under s. 54(1)(a) read  with  s.         25(2)  and also for want of an averment that either  of  the         two  women who were performing the cabaret was  employed  or         permitted  to  be employed by the Club or  that  liquor  was         being  consumed  by the public in the part of  the  Club  in         which the cabaret was being performed.  [359D-F]             The  allegation contained in the complaint could not  be         said to constitute an offence under s. 57(c), in the absence         of  an allegation as to which condition of the  licence  was         broken by the Club or the appellant in allowing a cabaret to         be performed in the Club premises and more so, when no  such         condition  in  the licence itself could be  pointed  out  on         behalf of the State.  [360C-D]

JUDGMENT:         CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal  No.  203         1976.         358             (Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  4-2-1976 of the Patna High Court in Crl. Misc.  Peti-         tion No. 441/76.)         A.B. Sinha and Pramod Swarup, for the appellant.         S.N. Jha and U.P. Singh, for the respondent.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             BHAGWATI, J. There is a club in Patna called   Bankipore         Club. The appellant is the Honorary Secretary of that  Club.         It  appears that at about 10.25 p.m. on 31st December,  1975         when  the New Year eve was being celebrated at the  Club,  a         raid  was carried out by the Assistant Commissioner  of  Ex-         cise, Inspector of Excise and  SubInspector (Excise) and  it         was  found  that  two women and five men  were  singing  and         dancing in the club premises.  The Excise Inspector filed  a         complaint against the appellant on 2nd January, 1976  charg-         ing  him  with  having  committed  offences  under   Section         54(1)(a)  and Section 57 (c) of the Bihar and Orissa  Excise         Act  1915.       The allegations on the basis of  which  the         complaint was filed  are   material and we may set them  out         in extenso:                              "A  Cabaret  dance with  women  was  in                       progress  at  Banki-  pore Club,  Patna.   Two                       women  and five men were singing and  dancing.                       This  dance  was being  performed  inside  the                       premises of the Bankipore Club, Patna before a                       large gather-                       ing  of  men and women.  I  asked  Dr.  Sharda                       Prasad  Singh,    Honorary Secretary  and  his                       Manager  Sri  Banke  Bihari   Prasad Sinha  to                       show the permission  obtained  from        the                       District Magistrate or from any other authori-                       ty  for organising the Cabaret  dance  because                       licence vending ’Off’ foreign liquor is  given                       to  Bankipore  Club in form 2.   The  validity

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

                     period of licence is from 1-4-75 to  31-3-1976                       and   under  Section  25  (2),  conducting  of                       Cabaret  dances  without obtaining  the  prior                       permission from any proper authority is  ille-                       gal.  Dr. Sharda Prasad Singh who is  Honorary                       Secretary   of   Patna Bankipore Club did  not                       show any permission of the    District  Magis-                       trate or of any other authority for conducting                       the  Cabaret and he said that he had  not  ob-                       tained any such  permission.                            Therefore,   Dr.  Sharda  Prasad   Singh,                       Honorary Secretary                       is  guilty of the aforesaid. offence.   It  is                       therefore,   prayed  that  Dr.  Sharda  Prasad                       Singh,  Honorary Secretary be prosecuted in  a                       Court of law for violating Section  54(a)  and                       Section  57(c) of the Excise Act for which   I                       have  been                       authorised  to submit charge sheet to  him  by                       the  District                       Magistrate, Patna".         These  allegations according to the appellant did not   con-         stitute  any offence and hence the appellant filed an appli-         cation in the High Court of  Patna under Section 482 of  the         Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed  by         the Sub-Divisional  Magistrate,  Patna taking cognizance  of         the offences charged against the appellant.  The         359         High  Court by an order dated 4th February,  1976  summarily         rejected the application.  The appellant thereupon preferred         an application to the High Court for leave to appeal to this         Court,  but this application was also rejected by  the  High         Court  on  the ground  that the allegations set out  in  the         complaint made out a prima-facie case against the appellant.         This  led to the filing of the present appeal  with  special         leave obtained from this Court.             It is now settled law that where the allegations set out         in  the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute  any         offence,   it is competent to the High Court exercising  its         inherent  jurisdiction  under  Section 482 of  the  Code  of         Criminal Procedure to quash the  order passed by the  Magis-         trate taking cognizance of the offence.  The question which,         therefore,  arises for consideration is whether the  allega-         tions  set  out  in the  complaint  constitute  any  offence         against  the  appellant. The offences  charged  against  the         appellant  are under Section 54(1)(a) and Section 57 (c)  of         the  Act.  Section 54(1) (a) provides that if  any  licensed         vendor or any person in his employ and acting on his behalf,         in  contravention  of Section 25, employs or permits  to  be         employed,  in any part of his licensed premises referred  to         in   that section  any person under the age of 18  years  or         any  women, he shall be  liable to fine which may extend  to         Rs.500/-.   It  is an essential ingredient of  this  offence         that  the  licensed  vendor should employ or  permit  to  be         employed  any women in any part of his licensed premises  in         contravention of Section 25.  Now there can be no doubt that         the  Bankipore Club was a licensed vendor since it  held  an         "OFF"  licence in Form No. 2 given in the Bihar  and  Orissa         Excise Rules.  We will also assume for the purpose of  argu-         ment  that  the place where the cabaret was going on  was  a         part  of the licensed premises.. But in order that  the  al-         leged  cabaret  should constitute an offence  under  Section         54(1) (a), it was necessary that the women who were perform-         ing  the cabaret should be employed or permitted to  be  em-         ployed by the Club and moreover that should in contravention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       of   Section 25.  Section 25. sub-section (2) provides  that         no  person who is licensed to sell foreign liquor  for  con-         sumption on his premises shall, without the  previous  writ-         ten  permission  of the Board, during the hours   in   which         such  premises are kept open for business, employ or  permit         to be employed, either with or without any remuneration, any         woman, in any part of such premises in which such liquor  is         consumed by th.e  public.  It will be seen that this  provi-         sion also comes into play only  when  a woman is employed or         permitted  to be employed by a person licensed to sell  for-         eign  liquor.  Moreover, the  employment of the woman should         be  "in  any part of such premises in which such  liquor  is         consumed  by  the public."  It is  therefore,  obvious  that         there  could be no offence under Section 54(1)(a) read  with         Section  25(2) unless  it could be shown by the  prosecution         that the women who were performing the cabaret were employed         or  permitted  to  be employed by  the Club  and  they  were         performing  the  cabaret in a part of the club  premises  in         which  liquor  was being consumed: by the public.   We   may         point  out that it was contended on behalf of the  appellant         that subsection (2) of Section 25 can have no application in         case of a person who is holding an "OFF" licence as distinct         from  an  "ON AND OFF" licence in form No. 3 and  since  the         appellant in the present case was         7--1546 SCI/76         360         holding an "OFF" licence, he could not be guilty of  contra-         vention of Section 25, sub-sect/on (2) and hence no question         of offence under Section 54(1)(a) could arise.  But we  will         assume  for the purpose of argument that the  appellant  was         covered  by  Section 25,  subsection (2) and he was bound to         obey  the  prohibition contained in that  sub-section.   But         even  so we find that the two essential ingredients  of  the         offence  under  Section 54(1)(a) read with Section  25  sub-         section  (2)  were not even alleged in the  complaint.   The         complaint did not aver that either of the two women who were         performing  the  cabaret  was employed or  permitted  to  be         employed  by the club or that liquor was being  consumed  by         the public in that part of the club in which the cabaret was         being  performed.  No offence  under Section 54(1)(a)  could         in  the circumstances be said to have been committed on  the         allegations contained in the complaint.             Equally,  it  is difficult to see  how  the  allegations         contained  in  the complaint could be said to constitute  an         offence  under Section 57(c) That section provides  that  if         any  holder  of  a licence  granted  under the  Act  or  any         person  in his employ or acting on his behalf wilfully  does         any act in breach of the condition of the licence for  which         a  penalty is not prescribed elsewhere in the Act, he  shall         be  liable to fine which may extend to Rs.500/-.   The  com-         plaint does not allege as to which condition of the  licence         was broken by the club or the appellant in allowing a  caba-         ret  to  be performed in the club premises.  Nor  could  the         learned  counsel appearing on behalf of the State point  out         any  such  condition of the licence.  The  allegations  con-         tained   in the complaint manifestly did not  constitute  an         offence  under  Section 57(c).             This  was, therefore, clearly a case where  the  allega-         tions  contained  in the complaint did  not  constitute  any         offence  and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was in  error  in         taking  cognizance  of it.  The High Court  in  the  circum-         stances  ought not to have rejected the application of   the         appellant  for  quashing  the order  of  the  Sub-Divisional         Magistrate.         We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       High  Court  and quash the proceedings in Case No.  2(2)  76         Trial No. 285/76 pending  in the Court in  Mr. S.S.P. Yadav,         Executive  Magistrate, Sadar Patna.         S.R.                                        Appeal allowed.         361