ROHIDAS HARBAKAS DHAKALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by the original accused, challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate for an offence punishable under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, has been that on 8th October, 1977, the accused was travelling by the 58-Up to Pathankot Express, from Delhi to Bombay. He was a passenger from Delhi to Nasik. At about 10 p.m. on the same day, when the said train stopped at the Chalisgaon Railway Station, Head Constable Abhimanyu Patil and Constable Pralhad, got into the compartment in which the accused was travelling. The accused was seated on a bench and there was a trunk below his seat. Head Constable, Abhimanyu, smelt Ganja and made inquiries with the accused about the trunk near his feet. The accused was frightened when asked to open the trunk. The accused, however, did open the trunk taking out its key. On opening, the trunk was found to contain 3 packages of Ganja in cloth bags. The accused was detained and the party got down at the next stop i.e. Manmad Railway Station and by the train in the opposite direction, the party returned to Chalisgaon and went to the Railway Station. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation and receipt of report from the Chemical Analyser, the accused came to be charge-sheeted. The defence of the accused was one of denial. The trunk was disowned by the accused and the same was alleged to have been foisted upon the accused. The learned trial Magistrate by his order dated 3rd July, 1978, convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for a period of 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default whereof, he was sentence to suffer further R.I. for a period 2 months. Appeal preferred therefrom by the accused was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 13th October, 1978.

(3.) In this revision application filed by the accused Mr. Navin Parekh, the learned Advocate, appearing on his behalf, strenuously contended before me that the reasoning and the conclusion of both the courts below were illegal and unsustainable on the evidence on record and the accused was consequently entitled to an acquittal. I am afraid it is not possible to accept this contention. In my view, there is sample evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the accused. Even if I were to re-appreciate the evidence, it would not have been possible for me to take any different view than the one taken by the two courts below. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the judgments of the courts below so as to warrant interference therewith in the present revision application.