Skip to content


Ghudusab Ibrahim Mujawar Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Appln. No. 1241 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1956Bom225; 1956CriLJ495
ActsBombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Sections 66
AppellantGhudusab Ibrahim Mujawar
RespondentState
Respondent AdvocateGovernment Pleader
Excerpt:
it was adjudged that where, the accused was in the possession of the key of locked room, from which the bottles of brandy and whisky were found, it was a prima facie evidence of his possession - - there was nothing against it, and both the trial magistrate as well as the sessions judge found that the applicant was in possession of the room and consequently also of the brandy and the whisky......of brandy and one bottle of scotch whisky. the applicant's defence was that the room in which the brandy and whisky were found was not locked and in support of his contention he examined one witness who supported his case. the learned trial magistrate preferred, however, the evidence of the complainant jamadar and the panch gundu narayan. the panchnama also mentioned that a door of the room was opened by the applicant who had got a key with him. the applicant was asked about what he had to say about the prosecution case, when he gave no explanation as to the circumstances in which he happened to have the key of the room with him, if he was not in possession of the room. he contented himself by saying that the room was not locked. it is obvious, therefore, that he had no explanation to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application for revision of an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, Cantonment, finding the applicant guilty of an offence under Section 66(b) Bombay Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case was that on 23-3-1954 the police went to a darga at which the applicant was sleeping and made him open .with a key which he had the lock of a room of the darga. There were found in it 12 bottles of brandy and one bottle of Scotch whisky. The applicant's defence was that the room in which the brandy and whisky were found was not locked and in support of his contention he examined one witness who supported his case.

The learned trial Magistrate preferred, however, the evidence of the complainant Jamadar and the panch Gundu Narayan. The panchnama also mentioned that a door of the room was opened by the applicant who had got a key with him. The applicant was asked about what he had to say about the prosecution case, when he gave no explanation as to the circumstances in which he happened to have the key of the room with him, if he was not in possession of the room. He contented himself by saying that the room was not locked.

It is obvious, therefore, that he had no explanation to give as to the circumstances in which the key happened to be with him. His possession of the key of the room was prima facie evidence of his possession of the room. There was nothing against it, and both the trial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge found that the applicant was in possession of the room and consequently also of the brandy and the whisky.

3. The applicant was, therefore, rightly convicted. The sentence passed upon him is not excessive. Rule will, therefore, be discharged.

4. Rule discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //