CHENNAI: A single-member bench of the Madras High Court has taken the task of determining whether the State government is an “abettor of crime” whenever an offence is committed under the influence of alcohol.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, in an order on Tuesday, observed that crimes committed under influence of alcohol are on the rise and the government is the monopoly liquor seller in Tamil Nadu. Hence, he said it “cannot wash its hand from the adverse effects of its policy of selling liquor to its own people” and suggested the government must be made to pay compensation to victims of offences committed under the influence of alcohol.
The query raised by the judge has evoked mixed responses and a few members of the legal fraternity said the courts must avoid indulging in “academic exercises.”
The court was dealing with a bail petition of a few men accused of abetment of suicide during a quarrel under the influence of alcohol. While granting the accused bail, the court ventured into the question on State’s role. The court referred to the Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code and said that the legal definition of abetment only includes three actions – instigating, engaging or intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence. The court observed that in the present question on hand, the government cannot be accused of engaging or intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence. But the government can be accused of instigating the crime, the court reasoned.
“Instigation means inciting another to do a wrongful act either by counselling or by encouraging or by suggesting to do an act... The government very well knows the deleterious effects of alcohol upon its citizens. Therefore, the principles of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ must be made applicable in cases of this nature,” the court’s order said. The doctrine ‘res ipsa loquitur’ is used in tort law under which a person, based on the circumstantial evidences can be presumed to be negligent and hence the cause of an accident.
“The traditional outlook of the offence of abetment may not strictly encompass within itself the issue which is now attempted to be addressed. However, law has to evolve and it can never remain static and become stale... The exercise done by this court in this issue is to meet this objective by making a march in law.” The court ordered circulation of the order copy to all advocates associations since the court wanted the assistance of the Bar in the issue. The court also wanted to give an opportunity to the State to explain its position.
The question raised by the judge evoked mixed responses from the legal fraternity. Former Madras High Court judge K Chandru asked, “The pharmacies are selling scheduled drugs. Some of them are barbiturates. Some one fakes a medical prescription and buys those drugs and consumes. Thereafter, due to overdosing he dies. Will you prosecute the government for selling those drugs?” He said court should not indulge in such academic exercises.
Senior advocate A Sirajudeen said, “Liquor is sold by the State not to enable the accused to consume it just before driving vehicle or committing any offence. It is the personal right of an individual either to consume liquor or not. Hence, fixing criminal responsibility on the State because it sells liquor is against all principles of criminal law. It is just like saying that manufacturers of knife and machete are liable for murders committed.” The court posted the next date of hearing on April 4.