KESHEO PENTAYYA TELANGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after stating the facts and dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.]

(2.) TURNING to the question of sentence, Mr. Phadke has raised a point with particular reference to the case of the applicant Shankar. Against this accused, the prosecution sought to establish previous convictions. They were convictions in the years 1956, 1957 and 1958 under Section 6(1) (a) of the C. P. and Berar Prohibition Act, 1938. Mr. Phadke urged that considering the provisions of Section 65, of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, these convictions cannot be taken into account for the purpose of the application of Sub -clauses (ii) and (iii) thereof, which prescribed enhanced penalties for a second offence and a third and subsequent offences. The contention is that a perusal of the whole section indicates that the offences contemplated under Sub -clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 65 are offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and not under any other Act or law.

(3.) THE learned Assistant Special Government Pleader referred to the provisions of Section 149 of the Act as to the effect of repeal. Proviso (c) to Sub -section (1) thereof on which reliance was placed saves penalties, forfeitures or punishments incurred in respect of any offence committed against any Acts 'so repealed'. I am unable to see how this provision can affect the interpretation of Section 65. The C. P. and Berar Prohibition Act was not repealed by the Bombay Prohibition Act. All that Section 1949(1), proviso (c), intended to provide for was that previous convictions under any Act repealed by the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, should not be affected or be deemed set aside because of the enactment of the new Act and nothing more.