Madras HC to examine whether State should be viewed as Abettor for Alcohol-related crimes

The Madras High Court is mulling over whether the state government can also be made responsible for crimes committed under the influence of alcohol, given the monopoly exercised by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) over the sale of alcohol in Tamil Nadu..A case involving a suicide that had allegedly been prompted by a drunken brawl lead Justice N Anand Venkatesh to opine,.“Every other day, this Court, with pain encounters various offences committed by accused persons under the influence of alcohol. In this State, liquor vending is within the absolute control of the State Government. TASMAC is a company owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which has a Monopoly over wholesale and retail vending of alcohol beverages. It controls the IMFL trade in the State. As per the available data, the TASMAC reported a turn over of Rs.31,757 Crores on IMFL products ….The Government certainly cannot wash off its hand from the adverse effects of this policy of selling liquor to its own people. The Government must be made responsible at some point of time for the increasing criminal offences committed under the influence of alcohol.“.The Court took judicial notice of the rise in alcohol-related crime while hearing anticipatory bail pleas preferred by two men, who had anticipated arrest after their companion committed suicide. The deceased had committed suicide after being confronted by the two petitioners, among others, over certain money owed. Both the petitioners had been under the influence of alcohol during the confrontation. The deceased was also said to have been drunk while committing suicide..The Court observed,.“This Court cannot continue to be a mute spectator watching with dismay, the increase in the criminal offences committed under the influence of alcohol. This Court wants to make the Government also responsible for each and every one of the offences that is committed under the influence of alcohol.”.To this end, Justice Venkatesh opined that responsibility for alcohol-influenced crimes could be fixed on the state government by viewing it as an abettor under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..“In every offence committed under the influence of alcohol, this Court is of the considered view that the Government should be made liable through its Ministry of Prohibition and excise, as an abettor of the crime. The definition of abetment under Section 107 of Cr.PC has three limbs namely; .(a) by instigating a person to commit the offence. (or) (b) by engaging in conspiracy to commit an offence. (or) (c) by intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence. .Even though, the 2nd and 3rd limb of the definition cannot be taken aid in the present case, the 1st limb viz., instigation will come into play. Instigation means inciting another to do a wrongful act either by counselling or by encouraging or by suggesting to do an act.”.Moreover, the judge also opined that the principle of res ipsa loquitur (‘the things speaks for itself’) can be applied to make the government responsible, given the obvious deleterious effects of alcohol..“The Government which is selling liquor to its own people and earning a major chunk of the revenue to the exchequer is obviously not doing it with the laudable object of improving the standards and quality of its citizens. 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. It is now a settled principle of law that this principle is applicable even in criminal proceedings.“.The Court proceeded to observe that it has limited scope for intervention in deciding matters of policy when it comes to alcohol. However, it was noted that if the state’s liability in alcohol-related crime were recognised, the Court would be empowered to direct the payment of compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..“These incidents [crimes committed under the influence of alcohol] are only bound to go up in the graph, unless some immediate steps are taken by the Government to change its policy. However, it is not within the control of this Court and it is in the exclusive domain of the Government….If the concerned department of the Government is also made as an accused for having instigated/stimulated a person to commit a crime, ultimately at the time of imposing punishment, the Court can order for sufficient compensation to the victim in exercise of its powers under Section 357 of Cr.PC.“.The Court added,.“This is the only way in which the Government can be made to pay for its questionable policy which has resulted in the increasing crimes in the state.“.Justice Venkatesh proceeded to post the matter for further examination in April. He has also invited the state and the Bar to submit its views on the issue. To this end, Justice Venkatesh has also ordered that a copy of the order be circulated to all Bar Associations so that concerned advocates may make their submissions before the Court. The matter has been posted to be taken up next on April 4 at 2.15 pm..The anticipatory bail pleas which prompted the discussion were allowed, subject to the execution of bonds and sureties, as well as cooperation with the case investigation. The Court allowed the pleas after it noted that the petitioners did not have any criminal history..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.