Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J.
Jignesh @ Pappu Chhagan Mochi Rathod - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 205 of 2012
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Prohibition Act - Conviction under Bombay Prohibition Act - 66(B), 65(A)(E), 81 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of section 66(B), 65(A)(E), and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It highlighted the requirement of proving conscious possession and the limitations of applying section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court also referred to the judgment in the case of Dhirajlal Gandalal vs. State of Gujarat [1991 (2) GLH 124] to emphasize the importance of deposition of panchas supporting the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act based on the prosecution's case of illicit liquor found in the car. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing lack of evidence and errors in understanding the law and facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found anomalies in the prosecution's case, including the jurisdiction of arrest and the lack of independent witnesses. It criticized the reliance on police witnesses and highlighted the failure to prove conscious possession. The court concluded that the lower courts' findings were based on surmises and conjunctures, and quashed the judgments, acquitting the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdiction of arrest, reliance on police witnesses, and the application of legal provisions such as section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of proving conscious possession and the importance of deposition of panchas supporting the prosecution's case. It also highlighted the limitations of applying section 106 of the Evidence Act in the absence of sufficient evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, quashed the judgments of the lower courts, acquitted the petitioner, and canceled the bail bond.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present revision application u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner – accused being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2012 by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Una dated 16.04.2012 confirming the judgment and order of conviction & order of sentence passed by Ld. JMFC, Una dated 15.04.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 701 of 2005, whereby the petitioner - org. Accused was convicted for offences punishable u/s. 66(B). 65(A)(E) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentence for (i) simple imprisonment of 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 15 days in case of in default of payment of fine for the offence under section 66(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and (ii) simple imprisonment of 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 15 days in case of default of payment of fine for the offence punishable under section 66(A)(E) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution was that incident of raid of prohibition of illicit liquor happened on 20.03.2005 at about 3.20 pm. It is the case of the prosecution that on that day, present applicant as well as co-accused were travelling in Maruti Esteem Car No.GJ-1-HH-7734 and they were passing from Una Town and they were coming from Union Territory, Diu. They were intercepted and asked by police persons of Una to stop vehicle, but both the persons did not stop car and ran away towards Bhavnagar side. Therefore, police persons of Una informed police persons of Nageshri police station to intercept said Maruti car and also asked them to inform police of Una. Therefore, police persons of Nageshri Police Station kept watch on road. When car reached near village Hemal, the said car was intercepted by police persons of Nageshri police station. On seeing police persons of Nageshri police station, both the persons parked their car behind one society and both the accused tried to run away from that place. They were intercepted and arrested by police and muddamal of illicit liquor i.e. bottle of prohibited foreign liquor worth Rs.9720/- was found under rear seat of car and also from box lying in the car. All these contraband bottles of illicit liquor and maruti car, etc. were attached under panchnama. The police registered FIR and thereafter, applicant and co-accused were arrested.
3. Charge was framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was returned for recording the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has examined witnesses, as also produced documentary evidence. The learned trial Court having appreciated the said evidence recorded the finding as noted in the judgment culminated in conviction as stated supra followed by imposition of punishment as above, which has been unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate Court and thus present revision is filed.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the concurrent judgments of the courts below would submit that the learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is submitted that learned Courts below erred in holding petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under section 66(B), 65(A)(E) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is not found in conscious and actual possession of alleged muddamal. It is submitted that there is no evidence that so-called muddamal alleged to have been found from the car are contraband bottles of illicit liquour. It is submitted that there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory obtained by the investigating officer. It is submitted that panch-witnesses of the panchanama under which contraband illicit bottles of liquor were allegedly attached have not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that no any independent evidence is led by the prosecution to prove the prosecution case. It is submitt
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving conscious possession and the limitations of applying section 106 of the Evidence Act in the absence of sufficient evi....
The prosecution must prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the court cannot convict based on conjectures, surmises, and presumption.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove possession of liquor beyond all reasonable doubt and the need for the evidence to pass the test of tru....
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroboration from witnesses in criminal cases and the right of the accused to present evidence in their defense.
1. An appellate court cannot convict an accused of an offense for which they were not convicted by the trial court, unless the accused has appealed against the acquittal.
2. The evidence of a panc....
The absence of proper documentation and information rendered the conviction erroneous and illegal, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair investigation, credibility of evidence, and the prosecution's burden to prove conscious possession in cases of alleged offenses.
Prosecution must prove that liquor was consumed in prohibited areas to sustain convictions under the Bombay Prohibition Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
