JUDGMENT - DABHOLKAR N.V., J.:---Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith for hearing by mutual consent.

2. Present petitioners approach this Court against concurrent conviction imposed upon them for the offence punishable under section 85(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act. Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Naigaon (Bazar) by his judgment and order dated 2-1-1998 delivered in Summary Criminal Case No. 331/1996 held them guilty for the said offence and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for three months, fine of Rs. 300/-, i/d R.I. for 15 days. This conviction was confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, while dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1/1998 by his judgment and order dated 3-8-2002. Petitioners are in jail since then.

3. Being a revision petition and realising its limited scope, Advocate Shri Mandlik has mainly relied upon a proposition that drunkenness is not conclusively proved. Relying upon Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, and judgment of the Supreme Court reported at 1971(3) Supreme Court Cases 930 (Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra)1, Shri Mandlik propounded :

"Drunkenness cannot be said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document