STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ONKAR MANIK PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only contention advanced by the State in this appeal against acquittal is that on the date the case reached hearing, the State had preferred an application for adjournment on the ground that the complainant was absent and summons returned unserved with the endorsment that the complainant had gone out of Dhulia and therefore he could not be served. THErefore they may be given time to keep the complainant present since his testimony was essential in the case. An application for Issuing fresh summons was also made. THE learned Magistrate however rejected the said application and proceeded with the case. I will for the sake of arguments assume that the learned Magistrate erred in not adjourning the matter and issuing fresh summons to keep the complainant present. However, even accepting that the complainant would have deposed to everything that the prosecution wanted him to do, in view of the fact that the only other witnesses viz. the panchas of the panchanama of the State of the accused, did not support the prosecution it is difficult to hold that the prosecution would have succeeded in the present case in establishing the guilt of the accused. THE prosecution was admittedly for offence under sections 66(b) and 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. THE two panchas who have been examined have both deposed against the prosecution story. THEy were in fact declared hostile and were cross examined. However nothing of importance came out of their cross-examination. In the circumstances. I am of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should interfer with the order of acqittal passed by that the learned Magistrate, THE result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed and the order of acquittal is confirmed. THE bail bond of the accused to stand cancelled.