STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JONSING GANGUSING RAJPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against the appellate order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate court is preferred by the State.

(2.) The respondent accused was prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 85 (1) (3) and 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the learned Judicial Magistrate. First class. 4th court Baroda In criminal case No. 3609 of 1974. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused had consumed alcohol and was found drunk on the road at P. T. S. compound. The complainant who is also residing in the said compound in the said quarters, at about 8.30 p. m. on 8-4-1975, found that the accused was drunk and was abusing him. He reported the matter to the authority concerned but, in the meanwhile the accused had left the place. He reappeared at 1 a. m., early next morning and was arrested. He was sent to the S. S. G. hospital. Baroda where the Casualty Medical Officer on duty examined him. In the opinion of the doctor, when he examined him. he was not under the influence of alcohol, though he was smelling of alcohol and he had consumed alcohol. The medical officer collected samples of blood & urine of the accused and the same were later sent for analysis to the chemical analyser. On analysis, it was found that the blood contained 0.2047 percent of w/v of alcohol. The accused was then put up for trial for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate on the evidence led before him came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge under section 85 (1) (3) of the Act. He. therefore, acquitted the accusd for the said offence. He, however, found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused so far as the charge under Section 66(1) (b) of the Act was concerned. He, therefore, recorded a finding of conviction for the offence under the said section and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/ in default further R. I. for 15 days.

(3.) In the appeal, which was preferred by the accused to the court of the learned Sessions Judge at Baroda. the learned Sessions Judge, though, on merits, he held that the accused had consumed liquor, on technical ground he acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the offence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of the learned Magistrate-Aggrieved by this order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.