Gajanan S/o Vikram Gose vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 679

G. A. SANAP
Gajanan S/o Vikram Gose – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent

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

Judgement Key Points

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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Heard.

2. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 11.09.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiroda, for the offence punishable under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Prohibition Act’) (Earlier it was Bombay Prohibition act). Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on conviction sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.

3. The facts are as follows:

PW-4 Police Head Constable Sunil Lakhanprasad Yadav is the informant as well as investigating officer. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.05.2012 PW-4 received secret information that one person by name Gajanan S/o. Vikram Gose, R/o. Garada was illegally selling the liquor at his house. PW-4, alongwith Police Constable Sanjay Ambule, went to village Garada at about 9:50 p.m. They called panch witnesses for the purpose of raid from the said village. They apprised the panchas about the purpose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Bom) 679

G. A. SANAPGajanan S/o Vikram Gose – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Gajanan S/o Vikram Gose VS State of Maharashtra - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 679

Tej Narayan Sahni, Son of Late Basudeo Sahni vs State of Bihar Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3740

Umesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 1494

State of H.P. vs Totu - 2025 Supreme(HP) 1450

Agastin vs State by the Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Police Station - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 2367

Rahul Kumar S/o Parmeshwar Chaudhary vs State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 1295

Pamarthi Venkateswara Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(AP) 165

Sukhpreet Singh, S/o. Guljar Singh Dhillan vs State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer - 2025 Supreme(Chh) 464

State of H.P. vs Vinod Kumar @ Ghungaru - 2025 Supreme(HP) 1485

Uram Surendra VS State of A. P. , Rep. by its PP Hyd. - 2023 Supreme(AP) 69

G. A. SANAP
Gajanan S/o Vikram Gose – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent