Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sneha Dhote.
For the Respondent: Mayuri H. Deshmukh.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Details: The case involves Gajanan S/o Vikram Gose (Appellant) versus the State of Maharashtra (Respondent) in Criminal Revision Application No. 135 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur. The court allowed the revision application and acquitted the accused, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. (!) (!)
• Investigation Bias: A critical issue was that the informant (PW-4) and the investigating officer were the same person. The court held that as a matter of law, they should not be the same to ensure a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. This created a presumption of bias, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt without needing to prove specific prejudice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Credibility of Chemical Analyzer (CA) Report: The prosecution's case relied heavily on a CA report (Exh.7) showing 14.40% ethyl alcohol. However, the court found major flaws in the chain of custody:
  • The Malkhana register lacked proper descriptions, dates, and names of depositors/receivers.
  • The requisition letter (Exh.12) sent to the FSL lab lacked dates, outward numbers, and sample descriptions, and no acknowledgment of receipt was produced.
  • The CA report itself did not mention the carrier, date of requisition, or sample description.
  • There was a six-month delay in forwarding the sample, during which storage conditions were not recorded, raising doubts about tampering. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Conscious Possession: The liquor was seized from a wadi/courtyard, not the accused's house. The prosecution failed to prove that this open area belonged to the accused or was surrounded by a compound wall/fencing. Without evidence of boundaries, the court could not establish "conscious possession." (!) (!) (!)
• Witness Reliability: The panch witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were found to be unreliable. PW-1 was the chairman of the Tanta Mukti Committee and had close contacts with the police, making him inimical to the accused. The court deemed their evidence not cogent or concrete. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Final Outcome: Due to the biased investigation, lack of credible CA report, failure to prove conscious possession, and unreliable witnesses, the courts below erred in their judgment. The revision application was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)