Chagla, C.J. - (1.)This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 15th Court, convicting the accused under Section 43 (1) (a) and (b), Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, and sentencing him, under Clause (a), to a fine of Rs. 500 in default rigorous imprisonment for six weeks, and under Clause (b), to rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(2.)The case for the prosecution was that Sub-Inspector Chavan received information on 29th June 1948, about a still being worked in one of the islands in the Dharavi Creek. Thereupon he along with a police constable went there and he found the accused actually attending to a working still. He was arrested and charged as stated above. In support of the prosecution case, Sub-Inspector Chavan gave evidence and also the police constable who had accompanied him, and both these witnesses were clear in their evidence that the accused was actually seen changing water from the condenser of the still. The defence of the accused was that he along with his young daughter, 8 or 9 years old, had gone in a boat with nets in order to catch fish and that he had nothing whatever to do with the still. He was arrested and brought to the island where the still was working. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the defence set up by the accused and convicted the accused of the offence with which he was charge 3.
(3.)Mr. Pathare for the appellant has drawn our attention, firstly, to the fact that no panchanama was made in this case. It is not disputed that as the still was found in an open space the law does not make it obligatory upon the police to seize the still in presence of panchas. But what Mr. Pathare emphasises is the fact that the police had intimation about the working of the still and therefore before raiding the place they could have gone there accompanied by panchas. Mr. Pathare says that the result of not taking panchas with them is that the Court is left only with the evidence of police witnesses and the conviction of the Page 2 of 4 Shanwar Manu Koli vs. Emperor (01.09.1949 - BOMHC) accused is based only on police evidence. As this is a question that has often come up for consideration, it is necessary in our opinion once and for all to state certain basic principles which should guide the Courts below with regard to the appreciation and acceptance of police evidence in cases like this.