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

1964 Supreme(All) 314

M. H. BEG
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Govindi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
P.C. Srivastava, Asstt. G.A, For the Appellant / H.P. Agarwala, For the Respondent

ORDER

M.H. Beg, J. - This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of a woman called Govindi resident of Kalsi within police station Chakrata in Dehradun and a man called Mukundi from charges u/s 60, UP Exise Act. It is alleged that Govindi was caught selling illicit liquor to Mukundi and hence both were charged.

2. Among the objections taken on behalf of the accused in the court of the SDM Dehradun, where they were tried, was one relating to the powers of the Head Constable Babu Ram (PW 3), who caught Smt. Govindi selling liquor to Mukundi, to enter the premises and to arrest the accused at the place where the illicit liquor was being sold. The trying Magistrate held:

I have gone through the relevant Section 48 (et seq) of the Excise Act and find that a police officer below the rank of a Station Officer incharge of a police station it not empowered to effect a search or to inspect the place of sale of liquor without warrant of a Magistrate or District Magistrate. Head Constable Babu Ram was certainly not the S.O. Chakrata. As such the inspection by Head Constable Babu Ram was illegal.

I may observe that the way in which the learned Magistrate has dealt with the provisions of th

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