Final Order 1

Order Details: Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment. C.C.No.236/PS/2022.
CNR No.MHMM200008122022
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
16th COURT, BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY KETAKI M. CHAVAN)
RECORD OF SUMMARY CASE NO.236/PS/2022
Exh.
a) Date of offence : 08.02.2022.
b) Date of complaint : 08.02.2022.
c) Name, age and
residence of Informant
: State Excise Department,
FS, Kokan Division, Thane.
(C.R.No.81/2022).
d) Name, age and
residence of the Accused
: Santosh Shankar Kharat,
Age: 46 Years.
R/o: Pakke House, Anand Nagar,
Patra Chawl, New PMGP MHADA
Colony, Mulund (E), Mumbai.
e) Offence complained of
Particulars of offence
: Under Section 65(e) of Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949.
f) Appearance : Learned APP. K. U. Shaikh for the
State.
Learned Adv. D. M. Kokil for the
Accused.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Judgment. C.C.No.236/PS/2022.
JUDGMENT
After going through the particulars of the offence and the
evidence adduced on the record the following point arise for my
determination on which I have recorded my findings with reasons as
follows :
SR.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1) Does prosecution prove that, on 08.02.2022, at
Pakke House, Anand Nagar, Patra Chawl,
MHADA Colony, Mulund (E), Mumbai, accused
was found in possession of contraband articles,
total value of Rs.2078/ for sale without having
any Licence, Pass or Permit and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section
65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act? ….No.
2) What Order? Accused
is acquitted.
REASONS
2. In order to prove the guilt of accused except the evidence of
Panch Witness no any other evidence has come on the record. The
evidence of Panch Witness is also not convincing in nature.
Furthermore, the seizure panch also does not support to the case of
prosecution, because though this witness has stated that, he does not
recollect where his signature was obtained by Excise Officer on
Panchanama. He has also not stated whether the samples of contraband
article were taken out or not. Furthermore, even if the case of
prosecution is admitted that, the above articles were seized from the
custody of the accused still it does not prove that, it was a contraband
article. The prosecution has produced C.A. Report on the record but
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Judgment. C.C.No.236/PS/2022.
there is no evidence on the record to show that, the said C.A. Report
pertains to the Muddemal Property seized in the present crime.
3. In the instant case, prosecution could not prove the basic fact
that, the muddemal property was seized from the custody of accused. It
is also not proved that, it was contraband article. Therefore, in the
absence of any such evidence on the record the accused cannot be
convicted for the offence he is charged with. Thus, the prosecution has
totally failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
Consequently, accused becomes entitled for acquittal. Hence, I answer
the Point No.1 in favour of accused and against the prosecution and
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(1) Accused is hereby acquitted vide Section 255(1) of The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under
Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
(2) The Bail Bonds already furnished by the accused is kept on
record in compliance of with Section 437A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure shall stands continued till the period of
next six months.
(3) The muddemal property in the offence, be sent to Excise
Commissioner for its disposal according to law after appeal
period is over.
(Ketaki M. Chavan)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 06.05.2022. 16th Court, Ballard Pier Mumbai.
SBA/
-- 3 of 3 --