STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RANGRAO BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State of Bombay against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Batara acquitting the three original accused persons of an offence under s. 66 (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 (Bom XXV of 1949.)

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: Accused Rangrao and Bhagwan are residents of the village Rahimatpur in Satara District, and accused Yeshwant is a resident of Tukaichiwadi, also a village in the same District, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koregaon, received information that these three accused persons were consuming liquor. He took panchas with himself and proceeded to Rahimatpur on November 2, 1950, for making a search of the house of the accused, when he went up to the house of the accused Rangrao, he was met at the door-way by the accused's wife. He asked her to call accused Nos. 1 and 2. She immediately went in and gave information to the accused that the police had come. Without waiting for her to return to the doorway, the Sub-Inspector made his way along with the panchas into the house and found Rangrao, Bhagwan and Yeshwant sitting together with two cups and a big bottle before them. Seeing the police ana the panchas, Bhagwan, accused No. 2, concealed the bottle to his 'dhoti'. There was a scuffle between him and accused No. 1 on the one hand and the police on the other hand to get at the bottle. Eventually the possession of the bottle was taken by the police from accused No. 2 in the presence of the panchas. A search of the house was also made and a tin and an empty bottle were recovered as a result of It. The three accused persona were sent to the Rahimatpur Dispensary for examination. They were examined by the Medical Officer in charge of the Dispensary at Rahimatpur and from the symptoms exhibited by the three accused the Medical Officer came to the conclusion that they had taken alcohol in some form. The two bottles, the tin and the cups, referred to above, were attached after making a panchanama. The big bottle was sent to the Excise Inspector for examination and his certificate is to the effect that there was country liquor in it. After the usual investigation was over, the prosecution was launched against the accused and a complaint was filed by the Sub-Inspector. The learned trial Magistrate convicted all the three accused of an offence under Section 66 (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, an offence of having consumed liquor, and sentenced them to suffer fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs. 150/ - or in default to suffer further two months' rigorous imprisonment each. The accused appealed to the Sessions Court at Satara, and the learned Sessions Judge reversed the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate and ordered the accused to be acquitted. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against that order of acquittal.

(3.) NOW, the principal grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of the accused were: (1) There was no direct evidence that the accused had consumed liquor; (2) It is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused had consumed liquor. It must further prove that the liquor consumed was prohibited liquor, i. e. , liquor which the law did not permit one to drink. It Is not for the accused to prove that the liquor consumed by them, assuming that it is found that liquor was consumed by them, was not prohibited liquor. In this case the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had consumed liquor which was prohibited liquor; (3) The definition of the term "to drink" in Section 2, Sub-section (12) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, suggests that the Act envisages difference between consumption of liquor and drinking of liquor. To quote the learned Judge's words, he has observed: