BANECHAND MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter called as the "prohibition act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Police Sub-Inspector Soman (P.W. 7) attached to Anti-Corruption Bureau, Greater Bombay, on receipt of information, raided rear room of shop No. 17 situated at Karimbad Co-operative Society, Dungri along with panchas. It may be mentioned that this shop consists of 3 rooms; the front room was occupied at that relevant time by a shop known as "Liberty Stores"; the middle portion which, at the relevant time, was locked and the rear portion which at that time was open where accused No. 1 was found sitting on a chair near the table. This rear portion, the accused No. I styled as a godown. The inner room, as stated earlier, was locked. The police party asked for keys from accused No. 1 of that portion but he denied to have the keys of that room. The police searched the table and in the cupboard of the table, they noticed two keys in a key-ring. These keys fitted the lock of the inner room. The lock was opened. On opening the lock and the door of the inner partition room, they found four boxes containing bottles full of liquor. A bottle was opened and when smelt it was found that it was full of liquor. One bottle from each box was taken in the presence of the panchas and smell was given to them and then the bottles were duly sealed and labelled by the panchas and the police. The other bottles were also sealed. After sealing the bottles, the samples were sent to the Chemical Analyser for report. Accused No. 1 was questioned. He admitted that he was the tenant of that shop. He stated that the inner room was given by him on leave and licence basis to accused No. 2---the appellant in this appeal. In support of that, he produced an agreement dated 1st December, 1968 alleged to have been executed between him and the accused No. 2. That agreement was seized by the police. The police tried to find out accused No. 2 at the address given by accused No. 1, but he was not found there. A charge-sheet was filed against accused No. 1 in which accused No. 2 was shown as absconding. Ultimately on 21st October, 1969, accused No. 2 was arrested and supplimentary charge was filed against him. A panchnama was executed and the seizure of various articles, viz. locks, keys and empty cardboard boxes fond in the room, was noted in the panchnama. A charge under section 66(l)(b) read with section 81 of the Prohibition Act was framed against both these accused and was explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, three of whom were residents of that building who deposed that the appellant used to come to Shop No. 17. The prosecution also examined the panch and an Advocate who had drafted the leave and licence agreement between the parties. Police Sub-Inspector Soman was also examined. The accused were examined after the prosecution evidence was over under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused No. 1 stated that he had given that portion in which bottles were found on leave and licence basis to accused No. 2 and that he was not in possession of the room from which the liquor bottles were seized. Accused No. 2 denied that he was in possession of that room. He denied that any contraband liquor was seized from that room. He pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case.