A valid out-of-State liquor licence does not bar prosecution for alleged illegal transport into Gujarat.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR C.R. No.11189005240545 of 2024 registered at Morbi Taluka Police Station for offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the IPC, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.

Although not named in the FIR, the petitioner was subsequently arraigned as accused No.12 and was shown as an absconding accused in Column B-4.

The petitioner claimed that he held valid liquor licences in Punjab and was a partner in Hansraj & Sons and Shahkot Wine.

The investigation allegedly disclosed that liquor manufactured and supplied through Punjab licensees had ultimately reached the petitioner’s firms.

The prosecution alleged that the liquor was stored, QR codes and batch numbers were removed, and the consignments were transported into Gujarat pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy despite the prohibition regime in force there.

The material further alleged that the petitioner attempted to project Vishal Rathod as the owner of a shop through a power of attorney, dealt with liquor allegedly covered by an L-1 licence despite holding an L-2 licence, created a false partnership deed, and had prior criminal antecedents.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS to consider whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed at the investigation stage.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the IPC.

The governing principle applied was that quashing jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised where the investigation is continuing, the material discloses a prima facie case, and determining the precise role of the accused would require appreciation of evidence.

The Court also considered the effect of the warrant issued under Section 70 of the CrPC.

The decision in Kantilal G. Tandel v. State of Gujarat was treated as distinguishable because the present allegations concerned transportation of liquor covered by an L-1 licence, whereas the petitioner held only an L-2 retail licence.

The Court found that the petitioner’s valid Punjab licence did not, by itself, defeat prosecution under Gujarat’s prohibition law.

The investigation prima facie connected liquor seized in Gujarat with the petitioner’s firms and indicated alleged concealment of QR codes and batch numbers, unauthorised transportation into Gujarat, and an attempt to obtain illegal financial gain.

The alleged use of a false power of attorney, the petitioner’s purported handling of liquor covered by an L-1 licence despite holding an L-2 licence, and the alleged false partnership deed further supported a prima facie case requiring investigation.

Since the Court was not to undertake a detailed evaluation of the evidence or conclusively determine the petitioner’s role at that stage, it declined to halt the investigation.

The Court distinguished Kantilal G. Tandel, observing that the licence and alleged conduct in that case were materially different from the petitioner’s alleged transportation of L-1 liquor without possessing an L-1 licence.

The continuing investigation and subsisting warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC additionally weighed against granting discretionary relief.

The precedent relied upon by the petitioner was inapplicable on the facts.

Finding no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction while the investigation remained pending and the warrant continued to operate, the Court rejected the petition and declined to quash the FIR or consequential proceedings.