STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VASANT LAXMAN KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal. Accused is head constable attached to the police station Bhoom. On 2nd of August 1975, the accused was found on the public road at about 5.45 p. m. lying in a drunken condition with the dress of the police constable on his person. He was found so drunk that he was required to be lifted and taken to the hospital where he was medically examined and his blood was taked. The medical Certificate shows that the accused had consumed liquor. This is further supported by the report of the Chemical analyser. However, accused had pleaded not guilty earlier on 24th of September, 1975 when he was called upon to have his say against the allegations made by the police against him. Case was then adjourned from time to time. When the case was ultimately taken for hearing on 26th of April 1977, none of the witnesses for the prosecution was found to be present. The learned Magistrate, therefore, proceeded to acquit him for want of any evidenbe of the offences under Sections 85 (i) (ii) of the Bombay Prohibition Act with which he was charged. This order of acquittal is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Gangakhedkar, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that an adjournment ought to have been granted when the witnesses were not present on the day of the hearing. He drew my attention to the Roznam of the earlier day indicating that the witnesses were present, but the case could not be proceeded with because of want of time. In the memo of appeal, it is mentioned that the summons on the witnesses could not be served as the time granted for the said purpose was very short. The memo does not show if any attempt was made to get the summons issued. No summons appears to have been issued presumably becanse the Court was not moved for the purpose.

(3.) Mr. Mandlik Advacate appearing for the respondent accused contends that amongst the list of witnesses, seven witnesses happened to be police constables. According to Mr. Mandlik, there was no reesons why these constables should not have been kept persent to enable the Court to proceed with the case. This contention of Mr. Mandlik appears to be formidable. Having regard to the lapse of time from the date of the offence as also having regard to the negligence displayed by the prosecution in doing the needful for the effective prosecution of the case, I dp not think that I will be justified in setting aside this order of acquittal at this late stage, even though the offence by police head constable in this manner requires serious notice. If the Admini stration is really serious, it can still proceed against the constable departmentally. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.