STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTTAM BHIKHU PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal for the enhancement of the sentence arises out of the judgment and order dated 27/04/1981 rendered in Summary Case No. 4295 of 1980 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Bulsar wherein the respondent-accused Uttam Bhikhu Prajapati who on pleading guilty to the charge for offences under Secs. 65(a) & (e) 66 and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 came to be convicted for the same End was ordered to suffer for each of the offence R. I. for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 40.00 and in default further R. I. for 10 days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly according to the prosecution the alleged offence took place on 21/11/1979 at 16.45 hours near village Sonvadi on National Highway No. 8. On the basis of the secret tip-off P. S. I. B. P. Sarvaiya alongwith Panchas and another P.S.I. Thakore intercepted and searched ore Ambassador Car bearing No. MRC-9894 coming from Bombay. It was found that the respondent-accused herein was driving the said Ca while another accused-Chunilal Durlabji Thakkar was travelling with him. On making further search 313 bottles of foreign liquor of various brands valuing at Rs. 13 932 and some amount to the the of Rs. 2826.00 in cash were recovered from the said Car. P. S. I. Sarvaiya thereafter in presence of Panchas seized the said Car and muddamal articles recovered therefrom. On the basis of these facts after the investigation was over the two accused of (i) Uttam Bhikhu Prajapati and (ii) Chunilal Durlabhji Thakkar came to be chargesheeted to stand trial before the learned Magistrate for the alleged offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 (for short the Act).

(3.) That at the very commencement of the trial out of the two accused the respondent accused herein submitted a written purshis Ex. 11 pleading guilty and praying for mercy in the matter of sentence mainly on the grounds viz (i) that it was his first offence; (ii) that he will not commit the said offence in future; (iii) that the said offence has taken place due to ignorance of law; (iv) that he should be given an opportunity to improve; and (v) that he is poor having many children and burden of maintaining family upon him. As stated in earlier Para 1 of this judgment the trial Court accepting the plea of guilty convicted and sentenced the respondent-accused for the alleged offences. Since the another accused viz. Chunilal Durlabhji Thakkar refused to plead guilty his trial was separated and as the record speaks the said trial has not yet taken place.