BAJIRAO GANPAT MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner-accused under section 67 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dindori, in Criminal Case No. 50 of 1981, decided on 24th September, 1982, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1982 decided on 6th October, 1983. The accused has been sentenced for the said offence to suffer R.I. for three and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, R.I. for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that on information the P.S.I., R.V. Bival (P.W. 3) attached to the Wani Police-Station, on 17th July, 1981 at about 7 p.m. raided the house of the petitioner-accused situated at Bazar Galli, Wani, and the house search was taken in the presence of the panchas Trimbak Hari Bomble (P.W. 1) and Mohan Bhika Bagul (P.W. 2), after the accused was informed about the purpose of the raid. In the search two plastic buckets containing ghasti which was denatured spirit diluted with water containing alum and French polish collectively 25 litres, one tin containing French polish about 18 litres and one tin barrel with capacity of 216 litres that could be used for the purpose of manufacturing ghasti, two empty tins, one tin bucket, one tin of round size containing 10 kg. of ash, one aluminium small tin containing 14 packets of alum, one aluminium jar, one tray and four glasses were found. Sample from the bucket was collected in two separate bottles. Sample from tin was also collected in two separate bottles and they were sealed and labelled bearing signatures of the panchas and the Police Sub-Inspector. The remaining contraband liquid was destroyed. The panchnama Ex. 6 was drawn up. Photograph of the accused was also taken. The accused and the muddemal property were taken to the police-station and P.S.I. Bival, submitted his report Ex. 9. On the basis of the said report, offence under section 67 of the Act was registered against the accused and after necessary investigation charge sheet was filed against him.

(3.) The defence of the petitioner-accused was of complete denial. He denied that the property was found at his house. No witness was examined in defence.