DNYANU KONDIBA KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been referred to a Division Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the applicant who challenges his conviction under Section 85 (1) (2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act under which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 weeks.

(2.) THE applicant was a police constable serving at Dhond. The prosecution case against him was that on 3rd September 1967 at about 6 p. m he entered a hotel called Hanuman Hotel in Gandhi Ghowk and started abusing the hotel boys and beat one of them and also the son of the hotel-keeper. He was drunk. Finding the accused behaving in such a manner, the hotel owner Kishanlal contacted the police sub-inspector Shri Dodamani and reported the matter. The sub-Inspector went to the spot and saw that the accused was behaving in a disorderly manner. He brought the accused to the police station, but on the way also the accused behaved in a highly unruly manner. The accused was taken to the dispensary of one Dr. Tanwade, who examined the , accused and found that he was under the influence of liquor. Blood sample was taken of his blood and it was sent to the Chemical Analyser, but the Chemical Analyser could not send any satisfactory report on account of the condition of the blood. The accused was charged in summary trial before the Judicial-Magistrate, First Class, Baramati, for having committed offence under Sections 66 (b) and Section 85 (1) (1), and Section 85 (1) (2), and Section 85 (1) (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. He denied that he had behaved in a disorderly manner. He admitted that he had gone to the hotel and thereafter he was taken to the dispensary and examined by a doctor. His case is that he had taken Ayurvedic medicine from his medical attendant Shri Apshankar Vaidya and it may be that on that account he was smelling of liquor but he denied having committed any offence.

(3.) AT the trial the prosecution examined one by Murli, aged 12, the son of the hotel-keeper who testified about the accused's behaviour and stated that the accused spit on the ground and beat him and the other hotel boys one of them being Dasbrath. He stated that the accused was drunk and that he turned the table unpade down. Mr. Dodamani who was called and who was P. S. I. also testified to the unruly behaviour of the accused while he was being taken from the hotel. Dr. Tanawade who examined the accused and had given certificate as per exhibit 16 also testified that he found the accused under the influence of liquor. He noted the symptoms and signs in the certificate The prosecution also examined Vaidya Shri Apshankar and according to Shri Apshankar the accused was given a doss of Ayurvedic medicine in his presence and by such a dose the accused could never become intoxicated. The accused did not examine any witness on his own behalf. The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence brought by the prosecution and found the accused guilty under Section 85 (1) (2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced him as already stated.