[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
