SHRAVAN GANPAT RANDHIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application by the original accused one Shravan Ganpat Randhir has been preferred against the order of his conviction and sentence dated 5th August, 1978 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati, in Summary Case No. 363 of 1975 which order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, while dismissing the petitioners Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1978 on 23rd March, 1979.

(2.) The original prosecution against the accused was one under section 66(1)(b) as also section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 5th June, 1975 at about 8.30 p.m. The accused visited the house of one Shankar Rayste and demanded money. At that time, the accused was under the influence of alcohol and refused to leave the house of Shankar though asked to do. Shankar thereupon produce the accused at the Police Station, Baramati. Head Constable at the Police Station recorded complaint against the accused. The accused was then sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation and receipt of blood report from the Chemical Analyser, the accused was charge-sheeted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramati, for the aforesaid offences. Defence of the accused was one of denial. He denied that he had consumed alcohol. He contended that he was actually suffering from diarrhoea and stomach-ache, that he had been advised to take a medicine known as Jeevan Mixture and that he happened to take an over-dose of the said medicine which contained alcohol. He pleaded that he was innocent and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was found in a public place behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. It was, however, held that the accused had consumed an intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act and had consequently committed offence under section 66(1)(b) of the said Act. The accused was acquitted for offence punishable under section 85(1) of the said Act but was found guilts of and convicted for offence punishable under section 66(1)(b) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. This conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who by his order dated 23rd March, 1979 dismissed the appeal of the accused challenging the said conviction and sentence.