JANRAO BALAJI TANJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two applicants-accused in Criminal Revision No. 153 of 1976 were tried for the offences Under Sections 65 (f) and 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) and were convicted by the trial Magistrate for an offence Under Section 65 (f) of the Act only, and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Relying upon the ruling reported in Amar Tharumal v. State of Maharashtra, ( (1975) 77 Bom LR 162), they were acquitted of the offence Under Section 66 (1) (b) of the Act.

(2.) THE convictions were upheld by the Appellate Court. It appears that when the appeal came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, the learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the conviction of the appellants for the offence Under Section 65 (f) of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed on the appellants by the learned Magistrate was harsh and excessive and that the sentence passed against them be therefore, reduced. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. However, the substantive months imposed on each of them was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- and the default sentence of imprisonment was maintained. Now the two applicants have preferred this application in revision challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati.

(3.) WHEN rule was issued on this revision application, notice for enhance- ment also came to be issued, Criminal Revision Application No. 157 of 1976 is in respect of these suo motu proceedings for enhancement.