STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DHIRUBHAI G PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the order dated 11.09.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 1986, whereby the learned Appellate Judge has set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.06.1996 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Valsad in Summary Case No.2897 of 1995.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that Shri Manoj Antani (PW -1) received secret information that liquor was going to be transported into the State from Bombay in two cars. A raiding party was constituted and on the basis of the information, a black ambassador car bearing registration No.MRZ -8257 was intercepted. Accused No.1 was driving the car and accused No.2 was sitting on the passenger seat. On conducting search of the car, 24 bags and 3 cartons were found containing 907 bottles of whiskey, brandy, etc. valuing about Rs.55,900/ -. Samples from bottles were sent for chemical analysis and on receipt of report, charge sheet was filed. The accused did not plead guilty and sought trial. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted both the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 65(A), 11(1)(b) read with Section 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced each accused to imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000/ -. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 81 of the Act.

(3.) AN appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal on three grounds; (i) offence was committed on 4.8.1984 and chargesheet was submitted in Court on 23.8.1985, i.e. Beyond a period of six months and the trial being a summary trial, bar contained in Section 167(5) would be attracted and, therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence, (ii) panch witnesses had turned hostile and there being no independent evidence, conviction was bad, and (iii) no evidence was led by prosecution to show that liquor was imported from outside State.