Bombay High Court
State Of Mah.Thr.Pso.Karanja vs Kulbirsing Amriksingh Man & 4 ... on 14 July, 2017
Bench: M. G. Giratkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49 OF
20
02
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Karanja (Ghadge), Dist. Wardha.
..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Kulbirsingh Amriksingh Man,
Aged 25 years, R/o Palora,
Occ:- Business, Tah. Karanja (G),
Dist. Wardha.
2. Mahadeo s/o Chaitram Markam,
Aged 37 Years, Occu: Labour,
R/o Pandhurna, P.S. Pandhurna,
Dist. Chindwada (M.P.)
3. Surjitsingh s/o Chandansingh Man,
Aged 46 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Palora, Tah. Karanja (G),
Dist. Wardha.
As per
Court's 4. Bhanudas Ganpatrao Chaudhary,
Order dated Aged 65 years, R/o Palora,
03/10/2002, Tah. Karanja (G), Distt. Wardha.
Appeal
dismissed as 5. Gajanan Punjaram Manmode,
against Aged 24 years, Driver r/o Sarwadi,
R.No.4 & 5. Tah. Karanja (G), Dist. Wardha.
... RESPONDENT
S
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for State
None for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, J
.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 12/07/2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 14/07/2017
ORAL JUDGMENET
1. The State of Maharashtra has filed the present appeal
against the judgment of acquittal in Summary Criminal Case No.
311/1998 decided by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja
(Gh.), Distt. Wardha.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 24/02/1998
Police Inspector, Shri V.G. Ingole effected a raid on Motel Highway,
Dhabha within the jurisdiction of village Palora adjacent to National
Highway No.6. It is the contention of the complainant Police Inspector,
Shri Vinod Ingole, that during the raid 4 bottles of liquor, about 11
barrels of alcohol, 912 bottles of country liquor, one plastic measure,
some empty bottles and cartoons were found and seized. A cash of
Rs. 36,444/- was also seized which was the amount received by owner
of Dhaba namely "Motel Highway" by selling liquor. Shri V.G.Ingole,
Police Inspector, prepared report at Exhibit No.90 and handed over to
Police Sub Inspector, Y.T. Rathod. The crime was registered against the
accused persons. Police Sub Inspector, Saiyyed filed charge sheet before
the Court.
3. Particulars were explained to the accused persons.
Prosecution examined in all total 5 witnesses. P.W. 1 and 3 are the
Panch witnesses. P.W. Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are the Police Personnel. P.W.
No.2 has stated about the entire investigation. He has stated that 4
bottles of illicit liquor country liquor in drums, and cash of 31,444/-
were seized from the accused. There is no reason to discard the
evidence of prosecution witness, therefore he prayed to allow the
appeal and convict the accused.
4. Appeal is admitted against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3
only.
Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri
Doifode. He has submitted that evidence of P.W. No.2 and P.W. No. 4 is
sufficient to convict the accused. The learned Trial Court wrongly
disbelieved them. Their evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of
accused for the offence punishable under Section 66(i) (b), 65(d) and
65(f) of Bombay Prohibition Act. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Shri Doifode, pointed out the evidence of P.W. No. 2 and 4 and
submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Police
Inspector Shri Ingole and Shri Rathod.
5. None appeared for the respondents. From the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that prosecution witness No.2,
Police Inspector Shri Ingole effected the raid. As per his contention,
panch witnesses Shri Anil Dnyaneshwar Shrirame and Shri Raju Vitthal
Kaushik were present at the time of raid. The Seizure Panchanama
Exhibit-89 and Arrest Panchama Exhibit No.91 were prepared in their
presence. Both the pancha witnesses i.e. P.W. No.1 and 3 not supported
prosecution case.
6. Prosecution case is only based on the evidence of P.W.
No.2 and P.W. No. 4. As per the evidence of P.W. no.2, he himself
conducted the raid in presence of panchas and found huge quantity of
liquor with the accused. During the evidence it is brought on record
that huge quantity of liquor was seized from one hut situated in
agricultural field and from one Godown. From perusal of the evidence
it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove that those godown and
hut were belonging to any of the accused.
7. As per Seizure Panchanama cash amount of
Rs.36,564/- was seized from accused no.1. It is admitted in the cross
examination by P.W. No.4 that he noticed many trucks parked in front
of Motel Highway, Hotel during all hours of day. Admittedly there is a
license for eating at Motel Higway, Dhaba, accused no.1 Kulbirsingh
Amriksingh Man and accused No.2 Mahadeo Chaitram Markam, during
the course of statement u/s 313 of Cr. P. C. have stated that all the cash
which was seized by Police was received by selling food articles in the
Hotel. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that cash amount
which was seized from accused no.1 was the cash by selling illicit
liquor.
8. There is material infirmity in the evidence of P.W. No.2
and 4. The P.W. no.2 has stated in his evidence that he lodged the
report. The P.W. No.4 has admitted that P.W. No.2 lodged the report in
the Police Station but printed F.I.R. does not bear the signature of
P.W.2. Seizure Panchanama etc. was completed in the night at about
11.55 and F.I.R. was registered on the same date. Police Station is not
near to the spot of incident, therefore prosecution has created doubts.
9. There is no independent evidence by the side of
prosecution to corroborated the evidence of Prosecution. Both
independent witnesses not supported the case of prosecution. There is
no material infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment.
Hence appeal deserves to be dismissed accordingly the
same is dismissed. R & P. be sent back to the Trial Court.
JUDGE
Nandurkar
