SHANKAR S O SAYABA BOLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision presented by original accused Shankar Sayaba Bole against the order of the Sessions Judge, Nanded, dated 5-12-1975 confirming his conviction under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Originally the learned trial Magistrate had convicted him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. in default to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. This sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default 15 days simple imprisonment.

(2.) According to the case for the prosecution, on 13th February, 1975, at about 18.00 hours the revision petitioner Shankar, who happened to be a Police Constable under suspension was found in a public place in front of the Police Headquarters at Nanded behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. It is alleged that the petitioner was abusing the Home Inspector and Magistrate Gaikwad. On behalf of the prosecution three witnesses were examined. There was also complaint, Exhibit 5, report of the Medical Officer, Exhibit 6, and the report of the Chemical analyser, Exhibit 7. The petitioner was acquitted under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, as the report of the Chemical Analyser was found to be defective. However, relying on the oral evidence, the accused was convicted under section 85(1) of the Prohibition Act.

(3.) Gulabsing (P.W. 1), is Reserve Sub-Inspector, who stated that on 13-2-1975 at about 6.10 p.m. while he was seated in front of his office, Shankarrao and Narayanrao, Head Constables, were also there. He says that he saw the accused on the road in front of the office abusing Home Inspector Deshmukh and Magistrate Gaikwad. Therefore, the accused was apprehended and was sent to Vazirabad Police Station, from there to the Medical Officer and ultimately was charge-sheeted. The witness says that he saw the accused in drunken condition. He proved the complaint at Exhibit 5. In that Exhibit 5, Shankarrao has been referred to as the person listening to the abuses. Exhibit 5 is not mentioning that Shankarrao and Narayanrao were together with the complainant.