NARAVANRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was drinking liquor on 2-10-1968 at a public place at Ner in the District of Yeotmal. The P.S.I. who had seen him drinking in a public place, therefore wanted him to go with him for medical examination. The P.S.I., therefore, caught hold of the hand of the applicant and wanted him to accompany him but the applicant pulled out his hand and caught hold of the P.S.I.'s neck and started pulling and pushing him. He had a a scuffle with him. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under section 75(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act as well as under sections 294 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. When the case was fixed for hearing after the charges were framed against him, the applicant filed an application stating that under section 129(A)(5) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, the resistance to production is deemed to be an offence under section 186, Indian Penal Code and not under section 353, Indian Penal Code. It was, therefore, submitted that he should have been charge-sheeted for an offence under section 186, Indian Penal Code, that in order to evade the provisions of section 186, Indian Penal Code, he had been charge-sheeted only under section 353, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly to him, therefore, the charge for the offence punishable under section 353, Indian Penal Code was illegal as it ought to have been under section 186, Indian Penal Code, and that because no complaint was lodged by any public servant as required under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, the charge framed was illegal.

(2.) The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments, passed an order rejecting the application of the applicant. Being aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed a revision application in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Yeotmal. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision application. This order, therefore, is challenged here in this application.

(3.) Now the penalty for contravention of provisions of section 43 of the Bombay Prohibition Act is provided under section 75(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Sec. 43 of the Bombay Prohibition Act deals with the regulation of use or consumption of foreign liquor by certain permit holders. Although the applicant was a permit holder, he had contravened section 43 of the Bombay Prohibition Act by drinking at a public place. Therefore, he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 75(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Under section 129(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, where in the investigation of any offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, any prohibition Officer duly empowered in this behalf by the State Government or any Police Officer, has reasonable ground for believing that a person has consumed an intoxicant and that for the purpose of establishing that he has consumed an intoxicant or for the procuring of evidence thereof it is necessary that his body be medically examined, or that his blood be collected for being tested for determining the percentage of alcohol therein, such Police Officer may produce such person before a registered medical practitioner for the purpose of such medical examination or collection of blood, and request such registered medical practitioner or furnish a certificate on his finding whether such person has consumed any intoxicant...... Under section 129(A)(3)-"If any person offers resistance to his production before a registered medical practitioner................it shall be lawful to use all means reasonably necessary to secure the production of such person or the examination of his body for the collection of blood necessary for the test."Therefore, the Police Officer was acting under section 129(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and was trying to take the applicant so that he could be examined by the registered medical practitioner and collect his blood. The Police Officer, under section 129(A)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, can use all means reasonably necessary to take him to the medical practitioner. In the case before us, the applicant is alleged to have offered resistance to his being produced before a registered medical practitioner. Under section 129(A)(5) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, resistance to production before a registered medical practitioner shall be deemed to be an offence under section 186, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Bombay Prohibition Act also creates an offence when resistance to production is offered. Such a resistance is deemed to be an offence under section 186, Indian Penal Code.