Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sau. Shobha Baburo Shende, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagbhid, under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act for possession of illicit liquor. She was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with default imprisonment of six months. The conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court, Chandrapur, in Regular Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2010 on 30.11.2015. The applicant then filed a criminal revision before the Bombay High Court. The prosecution case was that on 09.03.2009, police received information about the accused selling illegal liquor. A search of her house led to the recovery of 48 bottles of illicit country liquor (Santra Company). One bottle was taken as a sample for chemical analysis. The seizure panchnama was prepared, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The prosecution examined four witnesses. The accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. The trial court convicted her, and the appellate court affirmed. In revision, the applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the house and that the Chemical Analyzer's report was not put to the accused during her Section 313 statement, causing prejudice. The court noted that the CA report was on record but not specifically put to the accused. However, the court held that the accused did not dispute the recovery of liquor, and the conviction was based on the recovery and panch testimony, not solely on the CA report. Therefore, no prejudice was caused. The court found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Failure to put incriminating evidence - The Chemical Analyzer's report was not put to the accused during her statement under Section 313 CrPC. However, the court held that since the accused did not dispute the recovery of liquor and the report was not the sole basis of conviction, no prejudice was caused. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 4-6) B) Prohibition Law - Possession of Illicit Liquor - Section 65(e) Maharashtra Prohibition Act - Conviction - The accused was found in possession of 48 bottles of illicit country liquor. The prosecution proved recovery through panch witnesses and police testimony. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court. (Paras 2, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is sustainable when the Chemical Analyzer's report was not put to the accused during her examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Section 65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act
- Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Possession of illicit liquor
- Failure to put incriminating evidence to accused
- Prejudice to accused
