Final Order 1

Order Details: Judgement
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment. C.C.No.1630/PS/2021.
CNR No.MHMM200095092021.
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
16th COURT, BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY B.V.Baravkar)
RECORD OF SUMMARY CASE NO.1630/PS/2021
Exh.06.
a) Date of offence : 02.10.2021.
b) Date of complaint : 02.10.2021.
c) Name, age and
residence of Informant
: State Excise Department,
FSI, Mumbai (City),
(C.R.No.85/2022).
d) Name, age and
residence of the Accused
: Smit Singh Arun Singh Rathod,
Aged: 22 years, Occu NIL, r/o
Footpath, near Shrikrishna wine shop,
Dhobighat, No. 3, Dr. E moses Road,
Satrasta, Mumbai.
e) Offence complained of
Particulars of offence
: Under Section 65 (a) (e) of Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949.
f) Appearance : Learned APP. K.U. Shaikh for the
State.
Learned Advocate Mr. Yogesh Savadi
for Accused.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 08.02.2023)
After going through the particulars of the offence and the
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Judgment. C.C.No.1630/PS/2021.
evidence adduced on the record the following point arise for my
determination on which I have recorded findings with reasons as
follows :
SR.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1) Does prosecution prove that, on 2.10.2022 at
Footpath, near Shrikrishna wine shop, Dhobighat,
No. 3, Dr. E moses Road, Satrasta, Mumbai you
accused found in possession contraband articles
total value of Rs. 33840/ 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
Ramchandra Tanaji Pangale (P. W.1) no any other evidence has come
on the record. The evidence of this witness is also not convincing in
nature. Witness did not support the case of the prosecution. However,
Panch witness fail to depose exact quantity of seized liquor. The seized
liquor is wisky, G. M. Santra and Macdonald brand but witness deposed
only G.M. Santra liquor. He has not deposed particulars mentioned in
the panchanama. He has also not deposed the name of the accused.
The seized muddemal property is not shown to him. 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 failed to filed C.A. Report on
the record.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Judgment. C.C.No.1630/PS/2021.
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 is entitled for acquittal. Hence, I answer the
Point No.1 in negative and proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(1) Accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 65(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act under Section
255(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(2) The accused is directed to furnish personal remand bond of
Rs. 10,000/ under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for period of next six months.
(3) The muddemal property be disposed of as per the rules after
appeal period is over.
(B. V. Baravkar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 08.02.2023. 16th Court, Ballard Pier Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --