SHAH ASHU JAIWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged in the Court of Presidency Magistrate of Bombay as follows:

(2.) The two witnesses produced to support, this charge were D. P. Tambe and S. P. Gaydhani.

(3.) D. P. Tambe, (P.W. 1), a businessman, said that he had gone to "a shop to make purchases", without giving either the name of the shop or approximate date or time of his visit. Under cross-examination, he said that he did not know whether it was a foodgrain shop. He said that he saw the complainant pick up a jar, open it, and look at its contents. He deposed that there was "some talk" between the complainant and the accused. The complainant was then said to have come up to and told this witness that he would be taking "some commodity from the jar" which would be sent for analysis. After that, the complainant, it was alleged, asked for some Til seeds. Thereupon, according to this witness, "some persons in the shop found Til seeds in three plastic bags and gave the bags to the Inspector." He said that the Inspector (i. e. the complainant) sealed the packets and that the witness signed the packets. He deposed:"Cash Memo was prepared by some persons in the shop. Inspector paid money to accused No. 1 ............Accused No. 1 was with the Inspector all the while". His cross-examination showed that he could remember nothing material. He did not even remember who made the cash memo and whether anyone signed it in his presence. He said he only thinks that he signed it. To almost every question under cross-examination his answer was that he does not remember. Even after making every possible allowance for a memory which could fade with lapse of time, his version was extraordinarily nebulous and non-committal.