Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.609/PW/2018
Filed on .. 21/02/2018
Registered on .. 21/02/2018
Delivered on .. 07/07/2023
Duration .. 05 Y 04M 16D
CNR No. MHMM190023242018
Exh. 8
BEFORE 65th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No.609/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 08.01.2018 at about 00.30
hours
(c) The name of the
informant, if any;
: Through PSO Andheri Police
Station (CR No.01/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: Gauri Suresh Navlekar
Age : 75 years
Occupation : Nil
R/o. Kesarbai chawl, Teli gali,
Andheri East, Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec. 65(e) of Bombay
Prohibition Act.
(f) The plea of the accused
and his examination, (if
any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : As Per Final Order
h) The date of such order; : 07/07/2023
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C. C. NO.609/PW/2018
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. D. D. Kerkar for the accused
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 07/07/2023)
1. Accused has been chargesheet ed for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 65(e) of Bombay Prohibition Act.
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
On 08.01.2018 at about 00.30 hours, at Kesarbai chawl,
Teli gali, Andheri East, Mumbai, accused was found in possession
of liquor for the purpose of sell without any permit or pass.
Therefore, the informant had lodged FIR with Andheri police
station. As per FIR, Crime No.01/2018 registered against the
accused. Thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded statement of
witnesses, prepared spot cum seizure panchanama, seized bottles
of liquor and after completion of investigation submitted charge
sheet against the accused.
2. My Learned Predecessor has framed charge against the
accused vide Exh.2 and it read over and explained to accused in
vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
His defence is of total denial and false implication. Statement of
the accused U/Sec.313 of CrPC is recorded at Exh.7.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C. C. NO.609/PW/2018
3. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution prove that on
08.01.2018 at about 00.30 hours, at
Kesarbai chawl, Teli gali, Andheri East,
Mumbai, accused was found in the
possession of liquor for selling purpose
without licence and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/Sec. 65(e) of Bombay
Prohibition Act ? Not
proved
2 What order ? Accused is
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to point No 1 :
4. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined total two witnesses i.e. Police contable Suresh Chavan as
PW1 at Exh.4 and Rita (Hira) Rathod as PW2 at Exh.6.
5. PW2 Rita Rathod who was seizure panch witness deposed
that before 45 years police had called him at police station. He
has not supported to the case of the prosecution, therefore Learned
APP cross examined him at length. But nothing can be elicited on
record. Thus his deposition is of no use for prosecution.
6. PW1 Suresh Chavan deposed that he was posted at
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C. C. NO.609/PW/2018
Andheri police station. On 08.01.2018 he was on patrolling duty.
He saw that accused is selling country liquor at Sahar road. They
saw one women i.e. accused has plastic bag containing 15 Ltr
country liquor worth Rs.1200/. One lady constable Ghuge
searched accused. He seized and prepared panchanama of it in
presence of panchas. He lodged complaint against the accused.
FIR bears his signature.
7. During cross examination, he stated that he know the
accused before the incident and he do not know whether entry was
taken in station diary about his patrolling duty.
8. It appears from the record that independent panch
witness has not supported to the prosecution case. In such
circumstances in absence of testimony of independent witness,
deposition of PW1 is not sufficient and acceptable to hold guilt of
the accused.
9. From the record, it also appears that prosecution has
failed to adduce cogent and sufficient evidence on record. There is
no CA report on record to show that seized property was liquor. It
seems that prosecution has failed to prove the seizure
panchanama. Thus seizure panchanama cannot be proved. It also
appears that prosecution has failed to establish essential
ingredients of Sec.65(E) of Bombay Prohibition Act. In such
circumstances, I answer point No.1 in negative.
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C. C. NO.609/PW/2018
As to Point No.2
10 . In view of above findings, prosecution has failed to
establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for which
he has been charged. Therefore he is entitled for acquittal. In the
result in answer to point No.2, I pass following order :
ORDER
1) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 65(e) of
Bombay Prohibition Act vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
2) Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled.
3) Accused is directed to furnish P.B. & S.B. of Rs.15,000/ for
appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, in case appeal is
filed against the judgment of this Court vide Section 437(A) of the
Cr.P.C.
4) Seized muddemal property be forwarded to the concern Excise
Department for disposal according to law and cash amount if any
be credited to Government as per law after appeal period is over.
5) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
Date : 07.07.2023 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate
ask 65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated &
typed on : 07.07.2023
Signed on : 07.07.2023
-- 5 of 5 --