SHANKAR SAMBHAJI TALEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under section 85 (i) and (2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and also under sections 110 and 112 of the Bombay Police Act, On the first count he was awarded R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/~- i. e. R. I. for two months. No separate sentence was awarded on the remaining two counts. The conviction was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in a appeal, but the sentence was reduced to R. I. for seven days and a fine of Rs 200/-. It is against this order the accused has conic in revision.

(2.) The petitioner at all material times, and in particular on the date of offence viz. 17-8-1973 was serving as a Police Constable at Daund, the Taluka Headquarters in Pune District, On the same day at about 4 p.m. one Sarasvatibai went to the Police Station and informed the P.S O that the accused was drunk and was behaving in a disorderly manner. The officer directed his subordinates to go to the scence of offence. The subordinate officer who were mainly police constables attached to tke very Police Station, went to the chowk noticed the accused being incapable of taking his own care and shouting loudly. The accused was taken to the Police Station and on taking down the complaint of one of the Police Constables Aute under section 66(i)(b)and 85(1) and (2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act as well as under section 110 and 112 read with 117 of the Bombay Police Act, he was forwarded to the Medical Officer and on completing the preliminaries he was put on trial for these offences.

(3.) The defence was of a total denial, The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the three Police Officers who had gone to scene of offence, apprehended the accused and sent him to the Medical Officer. The remaining two witnesses viz. the informant and her daughter who turned hostile, However, acting on this evidence he was convicted for the abovesaid offences, but unfortunately ignoring the provisions of law relating to the terms of sentences he awarded much more than the maximum prescribed by the sections. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence so as to pattern it on the requirements of the section.