LAWS(BOM)-1975-3-21

MOHAMAD KASIM ALIJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 17, 1975
MOHAMAD KASIM ALIJAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction for offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for being found in possession of illicit liquor.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is a taxi-driver and had in his possession five cans of about 18 litres, each containing illicit liquor, four cans out of which were kept by him in the dicky, and one on the front seat. The Police-Sub-Inspector Patil was on a round on that day at about 8-30 a.m. in the morning, and the taxi of the accused, without any passengers in it, was going with speed and this aroused suspicion of the Police Sub-Inspector. He, therefore, gave chase but could not overtake it as the road through which it passed was a narrow one. Ultimately the taxi of the accused came to a halt as it was a dead end and the taxi could not proceed any further. On taking its search it was found that on the front seat there was a can, and in the dicky of the car, there were our more cans. On examination of the same it was found that it smelt like liquor. Therefore, the panchas were called through the head constable and the sample from each of the cans were taken in bottles. The five sample bottles as well as the plastic cans were sealed and labelled in the presence of the Panchas and the Panchanama was prepared and accused along with the cans were taken to the Police-Station.

(3.) The accused denied to have possessed these five cans as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, two persons hired his taxi and wanted him to go to the Victoria Terminus via-Parsi colony. He, therefore, took these persons in his taxi and took the taxi to the Parsi Colony. These two persons told him that they would bring their luggage. After some time those two persons brought two card-board boxes and kept them on the left side of his taxi outside the taxi. In the meanwhile the Police Officer came there and detained him. Thus, according to him, he did not himself possess these cans but they were the property of the passengers who had hired his taxi on that day.