SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Bom) 195

GANDHI
Maruti – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
S.J. Deshpande, for Petitioner; R.G. Deo, Public Prosecutor, for the State.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Maruti vs. The State of Maharashtra:

Case Overview and Outcome - The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner's revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the petitioner's release. (!) - The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. (!) (!)

Legal Interpretation of Section 85(1) - The essential ingredients for the offence of behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink require more than mere drunkenness and incoherence. (!) - The conduct must be violent, riotous, or cause a public nuisance to


Judgement

ORDER:- This is a revision application filed by the petitioner original accused against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhir, dated 3-3-1976 dismissing the appeal and ordering the appellant, that is, the petitioner to surrender to his bail, from the order of conviction in Criminal Case No.11 of 1975 which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Ashti on 27th November, 1975 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under S.85 (1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to pay the fine, to suffer one month's R. I. more.

2. Ordinarily this Court would not go into the evidence for the purpose of appreciating it in criminal revision application, especially when there are concurrent findings on questions of fact, by both the lower Courts. I would have followed this ordinary course, but Mr. Deshpande appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is not a case where it is a question of appreciation of evidence, but this is a case where there is no evidence whatsoever for the purpose of establishing the guilt under S.85 (1) of the Prohibition Act,



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top