Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Subhash Bhika Pardhi on 5 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13
Cri.Appeal.411.2006
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.411 OF 2006
The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Appellant
(Orig. Informant)
Versus
Subhash Bhika Pardhi,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Service (A.S.I.),
R/o. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondent.
(Orig. Accused)
.....
Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for Appellant - State.
Mr. A. K. Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent - State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 22 DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 05 JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. State hereby assails the judgment and order dated 30.01.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamner in S.C.C. No.13 of 2003 acquitting respondent from charges under section 85(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act.
2. Informant Shridhar Kendre, who was working as PSI, was available in his cabin on 11.09.2002 at 9:00 p.m. At that time, present respondent Subhash entered his cabin under influence of liquor and started abusing informant Shridhar. Constable, namely Cri.Appeal.411.2006 -2- Shimpi and Shinde, tried to convince the accused, but accused did not mend his ways or conduct, and he continued to misbehave in a disorderly manner in the police station. Therefore, with the assistance of other police staff, accused was referred for medical examination, and thereafter, report was lodged for commission of offence under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
3. Learned trial court, before whom respondent was charge- sheeted, framing the charge and recorded the plea. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses and also relied on oral and documentary evidence.
After hearing both sides and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial court was pleased to acquit the accused by its judgment and order dated 30.01.2006.
Feeling aggrieved by the above, State has preferred instant appeal.
4. Gist of the submissions made by learned APP is that, accused was a police constable. He was addicted to liquor and used to attend the duty under influence of liquor. On relevant day also, he had entered the cabin under influence of liquor and behaved in a Cri.Appeal.411.2006 -3- disorderly manner and that informant initially referred accused for medical examination, and on receipt of report, complaint was lodged. He further pointed out that, in spite of evidence of as many as 7 witnesses, learned trial court has acquitted the accused and he invited attention of the court to the observations of the learned trial court in paragraph nos.12 and 13 and would further submit that prosecution witnesses were consistent. That, their testimonies have remained unshaken. That, medical expert PW5 Dr.Gajanan Patil, who obtained samples, was also examined. That, report Exh.33 was also positive, and therefore with such cogent submissions, learned trial court ought to have recorded conviction. However, it failed to do so and erroneously appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and also failed to consider the settled legal position. Therefore, he urges to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
5. Learned counsel for respondent accused would support the judgment of acquittal by pointing out that alleged occurrence is of 11.09.2002. That, samples are allegedly taken on next day i.e. on 12.09.2002, and therefore, even if the report is positive, it cannot be said that the said blood sample obtained on 11.09.2002. He further pointed out that, even report is not immediate and rather it is tendered on 21.09.2002. There is no evidence of chemical analyzer to demonstrate on which date exact analysis was done, and Cri.Appeal.411.2006 -4- therefore, he justifies the order of acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
6. Heard. After hearing submissions of both sides and on going through the papers, it seems that, prosecution was launched against present respondent on the complaint lodged by PW3 Shridhar, who was a Police Officer at police station. Alleged occurrence is at around 9:00 p.m. of 11.09.2002.
GIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES PW1 in his evidence, deposed that, accused entered in the cabin of A.P.I. Shridhar Kendre, abused him and behaved in disorderly manner and therefore, he was referred for medical examination. In cross examination, nothing adverse has been brought on record.
Likewise, PW2 Somnath More, deposed that, on 11.09.2002, while he was attached to Jamner police station, he heard commotion in the cabin of A.P.I. Kendre and he testifies about seeing hot discussion going on between informant Kendre and accused and accused to be under influence of liquor and being forwarded for medical examination. In cross, he also denied that he was not on duty and that the accused did not behave in a disorderly manner.
Cri.Appeal.411.2006 -5- PW3 A.P.I. Shridhar Kendre, informant, deposed at Exh.16 about accused entering his cabin under influence of alcohol on 11.09.2002 and abusing him and behaved in rudely manner. He also deposed about accused being referred for medical examination and his blood sample is forwarded for analysis. Nothing adverse has been brought in his cross examination.
PW4 Sukdeo as like above witnesses, deposed about accused entering the cabin of PW3 informant under influence of liquor misbehaving and being taken to the hospital and his blood sample being obtained. His testimony to that extent, has been remained intact.
PW5 Dr.Gajanan Patil is the Medical Officer, who is examined at Exh.25 and he claims that, on 11.09.2002, the accused was produced for medical examination at 11.05 p.m., and he found speech of the accused was incoherent, gait unsteady, pupils were dilated, and that he was smelling of alcoholic. He opined that, accused was under the influence of liquor and accordingly issued the medical certificate at Exh.26 and deposed about blood sample of accused being drawn and handed over to police for chemical analysis and he identified Form No.B at Exh.27.
In cross, he admitted that a person can appear to be Cri.Appeal.411.2006 -6- under the influence of liquor even on consumption of triculizer or injection pethidine and some tonic. He admitted that accused had taken treatment from him two days prior to the incident. He admitted that blood sample is required to be analyzed chemically within 36 hours from its collection.
PW6 Bhimrao, P.H.C., also deposed about occurrence dated 11.09.2002.
PW7 A.S.I. Bhagwan Irmade is the Investigating Officer.
7. As pointed out, here, all the witnesses categorically stated that, on 11.09.2002, at around 9:00 p.m., accused has entered the cabin of PW3 informant and was said to be under influence of liquor and after abusing informant, behaved in disorderly manner. He was initially referred for medical examination and thereafter complaint was lodged and he was accordingly prosecuted.
8. As pointed out, here, there is report Exh.33 showing blood sample of accused containing 0.039 percent W/V of ethyl alcohol. As pointed out, here, there are consistent testimonies of witnesses, who were allegedly present even when the incident took place. Their testimonies have not been shaken while they are cross examined. Mere ground raised before this court is that blood sample was not drawn on the same day, but it was drawn on the next day.
Cri.Appeal.411.2006 -7- However, report Exh.33 shows that sample was drawn on 12.09.2002, whereas incident is of 11.09.2002 at about 10:30 p.m. and sample was drawn in midnight, therefore, next date is appearing in the report. Informant and witnesses are consistent about accused to be under influence of liquor and misbehaving or behaving in disorderly manner with informant. Independent witness like Medical Officer has also been examined. He has no reason to falsely depose against appellant. In fact, his testimony is a value addition to the other eye witness account of the occurrence. Such aspects are not taken into account by the learned JMFC. Essential ingredients for attracting section 85(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act are very much available in the evidence. Therefore, for above reasons, interference in the order of acquittal passed by learned JMFC, Jamner is called for.
9. However, it needs to be noted that, said incident, being of 2002, is almost two decades back. There are no bad antecedents and incident in question seems to be solitary incidence. Therefore, instead of sentencing respondent accused, benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, deserves to be extended. Hence, following order :
ORDER
(i) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.01.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamner in Cri.Appeal.411.2006 -8- Summary Criminal Case No.13 of 2003, is quashed and set aside.
HOWEVER
(ii) Instead of at once sentencing accused to imprisonment, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct by entering into a bond with one surety to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year.
(iii) The bond for a period of one year shall be executed by him before the trial court within a period of four weeks from today.
(iii) The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale