AHMED NOOR KARIMBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The conviction rested on the evidence of the police officer and the Panch witness who supported the prosecution case. The defence examined the second Panch who deposed that he did not witness the finding of the bottles of liquor in possession of the appellant. But according to him the bottles were at the police station and a Panchnama was made at the police station. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case that 16 bottles of liquor were found in possession of the appellant and that only one bottle which was sent to the Chemical Analyser was certified by him to contain liquor.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the conviction on five grounds. The first is sec. 342 Cr. P. C. was not complied with as only one question was put to the appellant regarding the possession of the bottles. Under sec. 342(1) Cr. P. C. this provision has been enacted only to enable the accused person to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It is the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and which require to be explained that have to be put to the accused person in his examination under sec. 342 Cr. P. C It is not necessary for the Magistrate to summarise the evidence of each witness and put the summary to the accused person in his examination under sec. 342 Cr. P. C. In the instant case the only circumstance relied on by prosecution is the finding of 16 bottles in the possession of the appellant and this circumstance was put to the accused. It is therefore sufficient compliance by the Magistrate with the provisions of sec. 342 Cr. P. C.

(3.) The next contention is that 16 bottles were alleged to have been found with the accused and only one bottle was sent to the Chemical Analyser. Even if 16 bottles were found by the police it was not necessary for them to send all the bottles to the Chemical Analyser. But if only one bottle is sent the finding of the learned Magistrate that liquor was found would have reference to only one bottle and not to the other 15 bottles. In such a case the finding would have reference to only one bottle of liquor found with the accused and not to other 15 bottles.