LAWS(BOM)-1963-11-3

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MADHUKAR GOPINATH LOLGE

Decided On November 19, 1963
STATE Appellant
V/S
MADHUKAR GOPINATH LOLGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of Madhukar Gopinath Lolge, a tonga driver, of Ahmednagar, under S. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, III Court, Ahmednagar.

(2.) THE Respondent, Madhukar, was charg-sheeted before the Judicial magistrate, First Clss, Ahmednagar, on the accusation that on 13th September 1962, early in the morning, at about 2-30 O'clock, the respondent, Madhukar, and his co-accused, Khandu, were found going on a bicycle, carrying illicitly distilled country liquor in two bladderws having a total quantity of 24 bottles. They were thus charged with having committed offences under Ss. 66 (1) (b) and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(3.) BOTH the accused pleaded not guilty. The respondent Madhukar stated in his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had been falsely implicated in this case by the Police Inspector Pawar, that he was in the service of one Vithal Hari Lagade as a tonga driver who owned a tonga, that on the night in question, at about 1-30 a. m. ,. he had returned to the Sarjepura locality in the tonga from the railway station, that he kept the tonga and its horse behind the Police Head Quarters and started going home on foot. When he came near the chowk in the Sarjepura locality, a policeman came near him in a jeep car and told the respondent that he was called by the Home Inspector Pawar. He was taken in the jeep car near the petrol pump. He was beaten by the Home Inspector. At that time two rubber bladders and one bicycle were found lying near the Police Inspector Pawar. He denied that he had ridden the bicycle or that he had borrowed it from anyone. He also denied that he was trasporting liquor on that bicycle. He further alleged that he was implicated on a mere suspicion and that the witness Shankar Kadekar who was examined as a Panchi, had given false evidence as he had not given him a free lift in his tonga.