Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
C/S filed on : 25/06/2018
Registered on : 25/06/2018
Decided on : 18/11/2025
Duration : 07 Y 04 M 24 D
Exh. 13.
PART-A
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
10th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.G.AGRAWAL)
C. C. NO. 1688/PW/2018
CNR NO. MHMM19-007930-2018
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
D.N.Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai. ……… Informant.
V/s.
1. Yashas Dinesh Khosla,
Age : 29 Yrs.
R/o. R.No.3, Koliwada Sion,
Mumbai.
2. Bhavin Mahesh Khosla,
Age : 34 Yrs.
R/o. G.T.B Nagar, Koliwada Sion,
Mumbai. ………. Accused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ld. APP for State : Shri. Firoz Shaikh
The Ld. Advocate for accused : Shri. Singh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 1 of 8 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
PART-B
Date of Offence 24/06/2018
Date of FIR 24/06/2018
Date of Charge-sheet 25/06/2018
Date of Framing Charge 07/09/2018
Date of commencement of evidence 14/12/2018
Date of which Judgment is reserved 18/11/2025
Date of Judgment 18/11/2025
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any. ---
Accused Details
Sr.
No.
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offence
charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Senten
ce
Impos
ed
Period of
Detention
Undergon
e during
Trial for
purpose
of Section
428
Cr.P.C.
1 Yashas
Dinesh
Khosla
24/06/2018 25/06/2018 S. 85(1) of
Bombay
Prohibition
Act
of IPC
Acquitted ----- -----
2 Bhavin
Mahesh
Khosla
24/06/2018 25/06/2018 Acquitted ----- -----
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 18/11/2025)
1. Accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Section 85 (1) of Bombay Prohibition Act.
-- 2 of 8 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
Facts of the prosecution case in short are as under :
2. On 24/06/2018 at about 3.30 hours near Signal of New
Versova Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai, both accused were found
consuming liquor and making noise and misbehaving in public place
without any valid license. Thereafter, PC Javed Shaikh lodged FIR
against accused. PSI Kalpana Suravase investigated into the offence and
presented charge-sheet.
3. Charge at Exh. 3 was read over and explained to accused.
They pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Examination of
accused was conducted u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. at Exh.11 and 12 wherein
they had stuck to their defence of total denial and false implication.
4. On the basis of evidence of witness examined by the
prosecution and arguments submitted by both sides, following points
for determination arose for my consideration. I have recorded my
findings to them along with my findings thereon as under :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that on
24/06/2018 at 3.30 hours near Signal of
New Versova Link Road, Andheri (W),
Mumbai, accused were found making
nuisance on the public road by consuming
liquor illegally without having any valid
No
-- 3 of 8 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
license ?
2] What order ? Accused are
acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution relied upon the testimony of informant PC Javed Shaikh
(PW1), panch Natwarlal Chimandas Solanki (PW2) and IO API
Vinodkumar Gosavi (PW3). The informant in his examination-in-chief
has stated that while he was on Patrolling duty along-with PHC Pawar,
PI Kamble they found accused under influence of liquor and they were
misbehaving in indecent manner. Thereafter, pachas were called and
panchnama was prepared. Further he stated that both accused were
sent to Cooper Hospital and he lodged FIR which is proved at Exh.6.
6. PW2 panch in his examination-in-chief has stated that
when he was called by police to act as a panch on the spot, PSI Gosavi
and another panch were also present. He further stated that police
informed him that accused under the influence of liquor were
disturbing public peace. But he did not remember the names of accused.
He further stated that police had shown him liquor bottle with accused
and thereafter panchanama was drawn which he proved at Exh.8.
7. PW3 IO has stated that on 23/06/2008 PI Kamble called
him at New Versova Link Road near Signal, Andheri (W) and therefore
-- 4 of 8 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
he went on the spot and he found accused were under the influence of
liquor. He further stated that he drew spot panchnama and found one
45 ml liquor bottle of McDonald company and one glass bottle
containing water and liquor which were destroyed on the spot. He
further stated that accused were taken into custody and sent to Cooper
Hospital for medical examination and report was obtained. He further
stated that accused were arrested and PC Javed Shaikh lodged FIR
against them and he recorded FIR. He further stated that he carried
investigation wherein he recorded statement of witnesses and he
presented charge-sheet before the Court.
8. Except police witnesses the prosecution has not examined
any eye witness or other independent witness. The prosecution has not
examined PC Pawar and PI Sachin Kamble or other police staff who
were also present on the spot along-with informant. PW1 and PW3
nowhere stated that they have seen accused while actually consuming
liquor on public place and liquor bottle was found in their hand. PW1
admitted in his cross that he has not seen medical report nor he
inquired with the doctor that accused have drunken or not. PW1 also
admitted in his cross that on his self assumption that accused are under
influence of liquor, he lodged FIR.
9. PW2 is the panch witness who deposed in accordance with
the panchnama carried in his presence. So also the medical certificates
annexed alongwith charge-sheet shows that, the accused were not
under the influence of liquor. Therefore, it cannot be said that found
making nuisance on the public road by consuming liquor illegally
-- 5 of 8 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
without having any valid license on the spot. Thus prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Consequently I record
my finding to point No.1 in the Negative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :
10. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused. Therefore,
accused are entitled to be acquitted. In the result, in answer to point
No.2, I pass the following order.
ORDER
i Accused No. 1. Yashas Dinesh Khosla and
accused No. 2. Bhavin Mahesh Khosla are acquitted of
the offences punishable under Section 85(1) of
Bombay Prohibition Act vide Section 248(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
ii Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
iii Accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/-
each under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(S.G.Agrawal)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 18/11/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 18/11/2025
Transcribed on : 18/11/2025
Signed on : 18/11/2025
-- 6 of 8 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
PART-C
LIST OF PROSECUTION/ DEFENCE/ COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
PW1 Javed Nisar Shaikh (Exh.05) Informant
PW2 Natwarlal Chimandas Solanki(Exh.07) Panch
PW3 API Vinodkumar Gosavi (Exh.09) Investigating Officer
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
C. Court Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution :
S.N Exh. No. Description
1 Exh.6 FIR
2 Exh.8 Panchnama
B. Defence :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Nil Nil
-- 7 of 8 --
Judgment 8 C. C. No. 1688/PW/2018.
C. Court Exhibits :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Nil Nil
D. Material Objects :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 -- Nil
(S.G.Agrawal)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 18/11/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 8 --