BHANUDAS RAMJI LOKHANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction which must be regarded as somewhat unusual, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, is being challenged in this petition and it will have to be allowed. The petitioner, who will hereinafter be referred to as " the accused", was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 2895 of 1976 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The basis of this prosecution was that the accused on that particular day which happened to be 1st of December, 1975 and at that particular time which was 7 or 7.30 p.m. had consumed liquor and was behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place under the influence of drink. The accused was acquitted by the trial Court of the offence punishable under section 66(1)(b) of the Act. However, he was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 85(1) of the Act and sentenced to one months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 15 days. This order of conviction was recorded on 30th of May, 1977 and was challenged by the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1977 which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Aurangabad by his judgment and order dated 30th of June, 1978. The accused has now approached this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

(2.) Mr. Agarwal, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition has pointed out that there is not an lota of evidence to show that the accused indulged in any disorderly behaviour as contended by the prosecution. Even, if the prosecution evidence is accepted in toto, it does not disclose an offence punishable under section 85(1) of the Act. Mr. Agarwal also sought to destroy the prosecution evidence relating to the identity of the accused. However, finding that Mr. Agarwals submission in the first count is fully justified, I have refrained from going to the question of the identity of the accused.

(3.) According to the prosecution, on the date and at the time referred to above, a nurse by the name of Baban Sonawane examined as (P.W. 2), was proceeding to nurse quarters of the Medical College Hospital at Aurangabad. The prosecution alleges that at that time the accused was standing on the road outside the gate of the nurses quarters holding a bicycle with him. Seeing (P.W. 2), Baban Sonawane and the accused by nodding signalled her to accompany him. Admittedly, Baban and the accused were not acquainted with each other. The accused was apprehended thereafter and the prosecution as mentioned above was launched against him. The question is whether what has been stated by Baban Sonawane discloses a behaviour on the part of the accused which can be characterised as disorderly behaviour in a public place-the view which I am wholly unable to share. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence to show what exactly were the words uttered by the accused, none of the prosecution witnesses says that the accused was behaving in an unsteady manner or otherwise indicating unsteadiness in his gait or standing. Apart from the everture which is alleged to have been made to Baban Sonawane, there is nothing in the entire prosecution evidence to sustain the charge levelled against the accused.