Back
J. C. DOSHI
Jignesh @ Pappu Chhagan Mochi Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
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 p
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
