TUKARAM PUNJU KOLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused who was a police constable at the relevant time has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopda, for an offence under section 85 (1) of the Bombay Prohibition Aet and has been sentenced to suffer S. I. till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 125/-. That conviction and sentence being confirmed in appeal, he has approached this Court in revision.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the prosecution of the accused are briefly these : The accused is a police constable attached to the Chopda police station, It appears that he actually hold a permit for consuming foreign liquor, as appears from Ex. 8 which is produced by him. On 26th November 1975 it appears that the accused who was wearing a police constable's uniform went to the fish market at Chopda at about 5 p m. He went to the fish vendors Bhoju Bhoi (p. w 4 ), Gangaram (p. w. 5) and Tukaram Bhoi (p. w. 6) demanding fish from them. It appears from their evidence that as the accused had taken fish from them on credit on previous occasions and had not paid for the same, these vendors including one Draupada the mother of Tukaram p. w. 6, declined to supply fish to the accused. The accused according to all these fish vendors was then under the Influedce of alcohol and he started abusing these fish venders in particular when he went to the stall of Tukaram (p w. 6) and when Draupada the mother of this witness refused supply fish to the accused the accused while abusing Draupada created a scene and a crowd of people or so collected on the scene. This incident attracted the attention of one Roshan (p. w. l), who is conducting an oil crushing factory in the vicinity of the fish market. He also rushed to the scene & noticed that the accused appeared to be drunk and that he was abusing the old woman selling fish, evieentl> the witness refers to Draupada, an aged mother of Tukaram (p. w. 6). It is because of this disorderly behaviour of the accused under the influence of drink that some people including Roshan Teli (p. w. 1) took the accused to the police station at Chopada.

(3.) The accused was produced by these people before Jalmsingh Solanki ( p. w. 8). Head constable who was then the police station officer. He also found that the accused was under the influence of drink and that he was abusing the people in a drunked state. That is why the crowd gathered even in the police station because of this behaviour of the accused. Head Constable Solanki immediately sent for P.S.I. Patil (p.w. 9). The latter arrived and noticed that the accused showed symptoms of being under the influence of drink and that fact was noted in the arrest pancha- nama Ex. 9. It may be mentioned that the F. I. R. (Ex- 7) of Roshan Teli ( p. w. 1 ) who was one of the person at the fish market was also recorded. The accused was then sent to the Medical Officer Dr. Jaiswal examined the accused at 6.15 p.m. He noticed that the breath of the accused was smelling alcohol, his speech was incoherent gait was unsteady and pupils were dilated, and therefore, the Doctor concluded that the accused had consumed alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol. A certificate Ex. 23 was issued to that effect.The blood of the accused was taken and was sent to the Chemical Analyser. The report of the Chemical Analyser Ex 23 shows that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused was as high as 0.138 w/r of ethyl alcohol. On these facts the accused was prosecuted for an offence under section 85 (1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.