STATE Vs. HAKU KHODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sessions Judge, Central Saurashtra District, has made this reference bringing to our notice the order of the First Class Magistrate Rajkot, passed in Criminal Case No. 14 of 1952 acquitting the opponent of a charge under Section 66(b) of the Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. The opponent, a police constable, was found in a drunken condition in a cinema theatre in Rajkot and on the complaint of the doorkeeper he was taken in custody and sent to the Doctor who found that he was drunk and was not in a position to take care of himself. He was thereupon put up for trial before the learned Magistrate under Section 66(b) of the Prohibition Act and was tried summarily and acquitted. The opponent's defence was that he had taken Eau de Cologne as he was suffering from cold. The prosecution examined the Doctor, the complainant and the cinema doorkeeper while the opponent examined Chhagan Harjivan who also serves in the police headquarters. After hearing the evidence on both sides the learned Magistrate acquitted the opponent.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of the Doctor and the defence witness as well as the statement of the accused proved that the opponent had drunk Eau -de -Cologne within the limits of Rajkot and that he is liable to be punished under Section 66(b) of the Prohibition Act. The Advocate General supports the reference.