NIMBA MOTIRAM SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consumption of beer either for the recreation purpose or on the health ground has, perhaps, landed the petitioner in the present difficulty. On February 8, 1978, po ice squad were on the mission of detecting an offence of dacoity that was registered at the Nawapur Police Station. On the way back to Nawapur at about 6 p m . the concerned police officers saw a crowd in front of a radio shop in the market area of the town. A person was seen emerging out of the crowd and was trying to bolt away from the spot. The Sub-Inspector, who was then travelling in the police van, had same suspicion and as an officer of the law. he stopped the vehicle and apprehended the accused with the assistance of his subcidinates The person was no other than the present petitioner. It was then revealed that rhe petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and was rowdy in his behaviour and was also not capable of taking care of himself. He was therefore, taken to the police station and a formal complaint came to be lodged The oetitioner was then forwarded to the concerned medical officer where h s clinical examination was taken and the blood of the petitioner was also extracted and the same was sent to the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur, whose report was received in due course, who certified that the alchholic concentration in the blood was 0-11 5 w/v of ethyl alcohol.

(2.) On the basis of this, the petitioner was charged sheeted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Nawapur, which is the subject matter of Criminal Case No, 175 of 1978 for offences under Sections 85(1) and 66 (1)(b) of the Bombey Prohibition Act.

(3.) Pleading not guilly to the charge the accused denied all the adverse allegations and contended that the he was never under the influence of alchol, nor did he behave in a disorderly manner, nor could it be said that he was unable to take care of himself. As regards the count of consumption of alcohol is concerned, the petitioner came out with a specific defence that he had consumed beer as he was having some ailment. In keepting with this defence, the petitioner, therefore, contended that no offence for consumption could be spelt out against him under Section 66(1 )(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.