Daulatrao vs The State

Gajendragadkar, J.—The appellant has been convicted u/s 63(b) and Section 66(b), Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two weeks u/s 65(b). The separate sentence u/s 66(b) has been imposed upon him.

The case for the prosecution was that on 17-3-1955, the accused was seen manufacturing illicit liquor at Antop Hill area B. P. T. chawls. Two constables who were members of the raiding party gave evidence. The accused denied the charge. According to him he had nothing to do with the alleged still. He was in fact arrested at 10-30 p.m. In a creek when he was a member of the quarry party. The learned Magistrate has believed the prosecution evidence rejected the defence plea and has convicted the appellant of the offence charged.

In the present appeal on behalf of the appellant Mr. Ingale has contended that the place of the offence has been described differently at different stages and his grievance is that in the charge sheet a deliberately vague description of the place had been given. In the charge sheet the place of the offence has been described as Antop Hill area, B. P. T., whereas in the first Information report it is described as an open place near the common latrines between A and B Blocks of B. P. T. Antop Hill.

We are unable to see why it was essential that the charge sheet should give a full and detailed description of the place where the offence was committed. Therefore the argument that the vague description of the scene of the; offence in the charge sheet introduced an infirmity in the trial must be rejected. Then Mr. Ingale has argued that the first information report has not been properly recorded in this case. The argument is somewhat novel. Mr. Rathod had recorded the statement.

It appears that the sub-inspector Mr. Rathod had accompanied the raiding party. Mr. Ingale''s contention is that since Mr. Rathod had left the police station for the raid he could not be said to be in charge of the police station even after his return from the raid. It is unnecessary to deal with this argument at length because the fact that the police officer who is ordinarily in charge of a police station has left for attending to a raid would not lead to the inference that after his return from the raid he was not in charge of the police station.

Therefore this argument also falls. Then Mr. Ingale argues that whereas the first information report refers to the presence of Jali in the chawl, according to Appa DhanaJJ, the Jali was not taken charge of and Gopal Laxman says that there was no Jali at all. Undoubtedly there is a discrepancy between this statements of Appa Dhanaji and Gopal Laxman but this discrepancy in our opinion is on a very minor point.

We see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Magistrate when he believed the evidence of the two police constables and held that the accused was attending to a working still as alleged by them. As usual no motive is suggested by the appellant which would explain why the police witnesses falsely involved the accused in this case. The result is the appeal fails and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate upon the accused is confirmed. The accused to surrender to bail.

Appeal dismissed.