STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. DAULATRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under sec. 65 (b) and Sec. 66 (b), Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 and in default rigorous imprisonment for two weeks u/s. 65 (b). The separate sentence under sec. 66 (b) has been imposed upon him.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that' on 17.3.1955, the accused was seen manufacturing illicit liquor at Antop Hill area B. P. T. chawls. Two constables who were members of the raiding party gave evidence. The accused denied the charge. According to him he had nothing to do with the alleged still. He was in fact arrested at 10-30 p.m. in a creek when he was a member of the quarry party. The learned Magistrate has believed the prosecution evidence rejected the defence plea and has convicted the appellant of the offence charged.

(3.) In the present appeal on behalf of the appellant Mr. Ingale has contended that the place of the offence has been described differently at different stages and his grievance is that in the charge sheet a deliberately vague description of the place had been given. In the charge sheet the place of the offence has been described as Antop Hill area, B. P. T., whereas in the first information report it is described as an open place near the common latrines between A and B Blocks of B. P. T. Antop Hill.