1                                                               revn157.

15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 157 OF 2015

Sau. Shobha Baburo Shende,
aged 45 years, Occupation Labour,
R/o Mendha, Tq. Nagbhid, Distt.
Chandrapur (in Central Jail, Chandrapur)   ... APPLICANT

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra, through 
Police Station Officer, Nagbhid, Tq.
Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur.   ... RESPONDENT

....
Shri A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri H.D. Dubey, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
....

         CORAM : M.G. GIRATKAR, J.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT  : 08TH JANUARY, 2019.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 11TH JANUARY, 2019.

JUDGMENT : 

The applicant (hereinafter referred as accused) challenges

the judgments of conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Nagbhid and confirmed by learned Sessions Court, Chandrapur.

Learned   JMFC   in   Summary   Criminal   Case   No.   58   of   2009   has

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  2                                                               revn157.15

convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 65(e)

of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for

three years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/­, in default, to suffer RI for

six   months.     Appeal   filed   against   the   said   judgment   vide   Regular

Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2010 came to be dismissed on 30.11.2015.

Hence, the present revision before this Court.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant was doing

the   business   of   selling   illegal   liquor.     On   09.03.2009,   police   got

information   about   the   liquor   in   possession   of   the   accused.     Police,

along with  two  panchas, went to the  house  of accused.   They gave

search to the accused.  Thereafter, house of the accused was searched.

During  search, 48  bottles   of  illicit  country  liquor  (Santra  Company)

were found in her house.  Out of 48 bottles, one bottle was taken for

CA sample.   Seizure panchnama was prepared.   After completion of

investigation,   charge   sheet   was   filed   before   the   learned   Judicial

Magistrate,   First   Class,   Nagbhid.   Particulars   were   explained   to   the

accused.   Prosecution  has examined four witnesses.   After recording

the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and hearing the prosecution and defence, accused came to

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  3                                                               revn157.15

be convicted as stated above.

3. Heard   Shri   A.J.   Thakkar,   learned   Counsel   appearing   on

behalf   of   the   applicant/accused   and   Shri   H.D.   Dubey,   learned

Additional   Public   Prosecutor   appearing   on   behalf   of   the

respondent/State.

4. Shri   Thakkar,   learned   Counsel   for   the   applicant   has

submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the ownership of the

house of accused.  Documents in respect of ownership of the house not

produced on record.  He has further submitted that the CA report is on

record.   But, question in respect of CA report not put to the accused

during recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of

the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.    Hence,  prejudice  is  caused  to  the

accused.   In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied on

the judgments of this Court in the cases of  Kiran Ashok Jadhav .v.

The State of Maharashtra (reported in 2014 All MR (Cri) 3850) and

Smt.   Pushpabai   Marotrao   Paraskar   and   another   .v.   State   of

Maharashtra (reported in 2011 All MR (Cri) 722).

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  4                                                               revn157.15

5. Shri   Thakkar,   learned   Counsel   for   the   applicant/accused

has   submitted   that   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   the   guilt   of

accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, accused is entitled

for acquittal.

6. Shri Dubey, learned APP for the respondent/State strongly

supported   the   impugned   judgment.     He   has   submitted   that   no

prejudice   is   caused   to   the   accused   by   not   putting   the   question   in

respect of CA report.  The material incriminating evidence in respect of

liquor   was   put   to   the   accused   under   Section   313   of   the   Code   of

Criminal Procedure.   Cited judgments are on different footings and,

therefore, the same are not applicable to the present case.

7. Perused the evidence on record.  PW­1 independent panch

witness of the same village namely Dajiba Randhaye has stated in his

evidence that on 09.03.2009, they got information that accused was

selling liquor without any permission.   Therefore, they informed the

police on phone.  Police came to their village.  They went to the house

of accused.  They gave their personal search to the accused.  Nothing

was found on their person.  When they had taken search of accused, 48

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  5                                                               revn157.15

bottles of country liquor of Rocket Santra Company were found.  Out

of those bottles, one bottle was taken for sample.  It was sealed with

the signatures of panchas.   Panchnama was prepared in his presence.

He  has signed  the  said  panchnama  as witness.    Another  panch was

Saosakhde.     He   also   signed   before   him.     Panchnama   is   marked   at

Exh.21.

8. PW­2 Jyoti, Lady Police Constable has stated that they went

to the village Mendha.  After getting information about selling of liquor

by accused, they went to the  house  of accused along with panchas.

During search, they  found two boxes of country  liquor  in  which  48

bottles   of   country   liquor   were   found.     It   was   of   Rocket   Santra

Company.     One   bottle   of   180   ml   liquor   was   taken   for   CA   sample.

Panchnama was prepared.

9. PW­3 Police Head Constable Shri Khobragade has stated the

same as stated by PW Nos.1 and 2.  He has stated that sample of one

bottle taken out and it was sealed in presence of panchas.  It was sent

to Chemical Analyzer, Nagpur vide letter Exh.25.

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  6                                                               revn157.15

10. PW­4 Chandra Chafale, Police Constable has stated that he

carried one bottle which was in sealed condition to Chemical Analyzer,

Nagpur.  That bottle was seized in Crime No. 6020/2009.  He handed

over the same to Chemical Analyzer, Nagpur.

11. During   the   course   of   cross­examinations   of   all   these

witnesses, nothing material is brought on record.  On the other hand,

suggestions were given to the witnesses that it was liquor.  PW­1 has

stated in his cross­examination that liquor was seized from first room

of the house of accused.  PW­2 has stated in his cross­examination that

liquor was seized from the house of accused.  All this evidence in the

cross­examination   show   that   there   is   no   serious   dispute   about   the

seizure   of   liquor   from   the   house   of   accused.     From   the   perusal   of

statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is

clear that material incriminating evidence was put to the accused.  She

has denied all the questions.  No explanation is given by the accused as

to why she kept illicit liquor in her house.

12. In   the   case   of  Smt.   Pushpabai   Marotrao   Paraskar   and

another   .v.   State   of   Maharashtra   (cited   supra),   it   is   held   by   Their

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  7                                                               revn157.15

Lordships, “No questions in relation to evidence of witness who proved

spot panchnama, seizure memo or C.A. Report were put to any of the

appellants   in   their   examination   under   Section   313   of   the   Code   of

Criminal Procedure.  Therefore, conviction was set aside.”

13. In the present case, all the material incriminating evidence

are put to the accused.  Seizure of liquor is not denied specifically by

the accused.   On the other hand, cross­examination of the witnesses

shows that seizure of liquor from the house of accused is admitted by

the defence.  Therefore, cited decision is not applicable to the case in

hand.

14. In   the   case   of  Kiran   Ashok   Jadhav   .v.   The   State   of

Maharashtra (cited supra), Their Lordships held that, “No evidence on

record to show that sealed parcel containing chopper and clothes of

accused were remained in sealed condition till same were received by

Chemical Analyzer.  There is every possibility of tampering.  Therefore,

the CA report is not reliable.”

15. In the present case, PW­4 has specifically stated that he had

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  8                                                               revn157.15

taken  the  seized bottle  of liquor  which  was in  sealed condition  and

handed over to Chemical Analyzer, Nagpur in a sealed condition.  CA

report   is   on   record   which   shows   that   the   bottle   was   received   in   a

sealed condition.   As per the CA report, sample contains 42% of v/v

ethyl   alcohol   in   water.     It   is   not   a   medicinal/antiseptic/toilet

preparation nor a flavouring material.   The cited decision decision is

not   applicable   to   the   case   in   hand   because   the   sample   bottle   was

sealed   in   presence   of   panch   PW­1   Dajiba.     He   has   stated   in   his

evidence that the sample bottle was sealed in his presence.   Seizure

panchnama was prepared vide Exh.21.  PW­3 Investigating Officer has

stated that out of 48 bottles, one bottle was taken for sample and it

was sealed.   The said sample bottle was sent to Chemical Analyzer,

Nagpur along with letter Exh.25.  PW­4 carried the said sample bottle

in a sealed condition.  Therefore, the cited decision is not applicable to

the case in hand.

16. The   accused   was   doing   the   business   of   selling   liquor.

Villagers filed one application before the Court vide Exh.4.  In the said

application,   villagers   requested   JMFC,   Nagbhid   not   to   release   the

accused   on   bail   because   she   was   continuously   selling   illicit   country

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  9                                                               revn157.15

liquor in the village even though there was decision  of Tanta Mukti

Samiti not to sell the liquor in the village.

17. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that

accused was found in possession of illicit country liquor.   Therefore,

accused is rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section

65(3) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.  At this stage, Shri Thakkar,

learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused being a

lady, lenient view be taken and she may be released only on fine in

stead of sending her in jail.

18. Section 65(e) reads as under :­

“65.   Penalty for illegal import, etc. of intoxicant or
hemp.   Whoever, in contravention of the provisions of
this Act, or of any rule, regulation or order made or of
any   licence,   pass,   permit   or   authorisation   granted
thereunder ­

(a) … 
(b) … 
(c) …
(d) …

(e) [sells   or   buys   or   possesses   any   intoxicant]

[(other than opium)] or hemp, shall, on conviction, be
punished for each such offence [with imprisonment for a

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::

  10                                                               revn157.15

term which shall not be less than three years but which
may extend to five years or with fine which shall not be
less   than   twenty­five   thousand   rupees   but   which   may
extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both].

18. The applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 65(e) of the said Act and sentenced her to suffer RI for three

years and fine of Rs.25,000/­.  The applicant/accused is old aged lady

about   59   years.     She   is   contesting   this   case   from   the   year   2009.

Therefore, judicial discretion can be used to meet the ends of justice.

19. In   that   view   of   the   matter,   revision   is   partly   allowed.

Conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Section 65(e)

of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is maintained.  However, sentence

is modified as under ­

Applicant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/­ (rupees

twenty­five   thousand   only).     The   applicant/accused   has   already

deposited   fine   amount   of   Rs.25,000/­   before   the   learned   Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Nagbhid.  Revision is accordingly disposed of.  

                                                
JUDGE
*rrg.

::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 14:52:17 :::