The prosecution is not required to always file extract from the Gram Panchayat or Municipal records to prove that the house in question belonged to the accused.

Headnote:
BOMBAY PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 67 - SEIZURE OF PROPERTY - PANCHNAMA - PREPARATION AT POLICE STATION - EFFECT - SAMPLES - LYING AT POLICE STATION TILL SENT TO CHEMICAL ANALYSER - EFFECT - SENTENCE - ENHANCEMENT - SUO MOTU NOTICE - CIRCUMSTANCES NOT WARRANTING ENHANCEMENT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was convicted under section 67 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for possessing denatured spirit and French polish. He challenged the conviction on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove that the house searched belonged to him and that the panchnama of the seizure of the property was not prepared at the raided premises.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the prosecution had proved that the house searched belonged to the petitioner and that the panchnama was prepared at the spot. It also held that the fact that the samples were lying at the police station till they were sent to the chemical analyser did not raise any doubt about the genuineness of the samples.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the house searched belonged to the petitioner? 2. Whether the panchnama of the seizure of the property was prepared at the raided premises? 3. Whether the fact that the samples were lying at the police station till they were sent to the chemical analyser raised any doubt about the genuineness of the samples?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved that the house searched belonged to the petitioner by relying on the testimony of the police officer and the panchas who were present at the raid. 2. The court held that the panchnama was prepared at the spot by relying on the testimony of the police officer and the panchas. 3. The court held that the fact that the samples were lying at the police station till they were sent to the chemical analyser did not raise any doubt about the genuineness of the samples by relying on the chemical analyser's report which showed that the sample bottles were sealed and the seals were perfect.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT - A.D. TATED, J.:---This revision application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner-accused under section 67 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dindori, in Criminal Case No. 50 of 1981, decided on 24th September, 1982, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1982 decided on 6th October, 1983. The accused has been sentenced for the said offence to suffer R.I. for three and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, R.I. for one month.

2. The prosecution case in brief was that on information the P.S.I., R.V. Bival (P.W. 3) attached to the Wani Police-Station, on 17th July, 1981 at about 7 p.m. raided the house of the petitioner-accused situated at Bazar Galli, Wani, and the house search was taken in the presence of the panchas Trimbak Hari Bomble (P.W. 1) and Mohan Bhika Bagul (P.W. 2), after the accused was informed about the purpose of the raid. In the search two plastic buckets containing ghasti which was denatured spirit diluted with water containing alum and French polish collectively 25 litres, one tin containing French polish about 18 litres and one tin barrel with capacity of 216 litres that could be used for the purpose of manufacturing ghasti, two empty tins, one tin bucket, one tin of round size containing 10 kg. of ash, one aluminium small tin containing 14 packets of alum, one aluminium jar, one tray and four glasses were found. Sample from the bucket was collected in two separate bottles. Sample from tin was also collected in two separate bottles and they were sealed and labelled bearing signatures of the panchas and the Police Sub-Inspector. The remaining contraband liquid was destroyed. The panchnama Ex. 6 was drawn up. Photograph of the accused was also taken. The accused and the muddemal property were taken to the police-station and P.S.I. Bival, submitted his report Ex. 9. On the basis of the said report, offence under section 67 of the Act was registered against the accused and after necessary investigation charge sheet was filed against him.

3. The defence of the petitioner-accused was of complete denial. He denied that the property was found at his house. No witness was examined in defence.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the prosecution satisfactorily proved the charge levelled against the petitioner-accused. Therefore, he convicted the accused and imposed the sentence mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the accused to the Sessions Court, Nasik, was dismissed.

5. While admitting this revision application a suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence was issued and it has been registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 329 of 1984.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that the prosecution led no evidence to prove that the house searched by the police belonged to the accused and that it was occupied by him at the time of the raid. The courts below have accepted the testimony of P.S.I. Bival (P.W. 3) and the two panchas Trimbak (P.W. 1) and Mohan (P.W. 2) and held that the house raided by the police was occupied by the accused and the accused was present at the time of the raid. On going through the evidence of P.S.I. Bival and the panchas Trimbak and Mohan I find that they had been to the house of the accused. The shop of the accused was also there and the accused was present. There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. It is not necessary that the prosecution should always file extract from the Gram Panchayat or Municipal records to prove that the house in question belonged to the accused. Consequently I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove that the premises raided were not in the occupation of the accused and the property found therein was not in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis