AMAR THARUMAL RAJPAL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original accused, who is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Poona against the order of conviction and sentence passed on him under section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee, Poona has come here in revision. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) On Jan. 16, 1968 the Police Sub Inspector along with other Police Officers was patrolling in the Pimpri Camp area near Poona. When they came near the hutments behind the inn belonging to one Mahadev at about 7 p.m., they found the accused going on the road at that time. The accused is a resident of Pimpri Camp area. He was in possession of a bag containing rubber tubes containing three gallons of illicit liquor. He was also holding two empty bottles and a German kettle, which also contained three bottles of illicit liquor. When the Police Officers found the accused carrying the bag, they suspected him and after calling the panchas searched the bag. After it was found to contain contraband liquor, they collected the samples of the liquor carried by the accused. The samples were sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination and the samples showed that they contained 18 per cent. v/v of ethyl alcohol in water.

(3.) The accused was, therefore, prosecuted for being found in possession of liquor. The accused denied having committed the offence. According to him the evidence led by the prosecution was false. The learned Magistrate disbelieved him after scrutinising the evidence including that of the Chemical Analyser and found him guilty under section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. That order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Poona, who heard the appeal and agreed with the view held by the Magistrate and therefore dismissed the appeal. This order of the learned Sessions Judge is now challenged here. The only point, therefore, that arises here for consideration is whether this order of the learned Sessions Judge is legal and proper.