STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHAIKH VAIDULLA AJMATTULA HAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Appeal No. 104/1996 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent came to be allowed and he stood acquitted for offence punishable under section 85 (i) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, the re-spondent (accused) went to the premises of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad in the noon of 21st May 1992. He was found in drunken condition. He shouted and behaved in disorderly manner under the influence of alcoholic preparation. He was caught by ASI Gaikwad with help of ASI Mehetre and was produced before PSI Vedpathak. A report was submitted regard-ing unruly behaviour of the respondent un-der the state of intoxication. Respondent was sent for clinical examination. The Medical Officer collected blood sample of the respond-ent (accused) and examined him. It was no-ticed that he was in drunken condition, for, his gait was unsteady, putils were dilated and the speech was incoherent. His blood sam-ple was sent for analysis to the office of Chemical Analyzer. On basis of the material gathered during the course of investigation, he was charge-sheeted for offence punish-able under sections 85(i) and 66(l)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(3.) The respondent (accused) denied truth into the accusations. He denied that he had behaved in disorderly manner under the in-fluence of alcoholic preparation, in the rel-evant noon. Learned Chief Judicial Magis-trate held that offence under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was duly proved against the respondent, but acquitted him of the offence punishable under section 66(l)(b) of the said Act. The respondent was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the order of convic-tion and sentence, the respondent preferred an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 104/1996), which came to be allowed by learned Additional Ses-sions Judge, as indicated herein above.