State v. Tukaram Khandu, Accused ., Bombay High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a prosecution under Sections 66(b), 85(1)(1), and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The accused was found drunk, incapable of taking care of himself, and behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution did not prove that the accused had consumed prohibited liquor. The State challenged the acquittal, except for the acquittal under Section 66(b), which was not contested.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether it is necessary to prove that the accused consumed prohibited liquor to convict under Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

Whether the Magistrate's acquittal based on the absence of proof of consumption of prohibited liquor was legally sustainable.

What sentence should be imposed if the accused is convicted under Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2) arising from the same incident.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (State)

The Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove consumption of prohibited liquor.

It is sufficient to show that the accused was drunk, incapable of self-care, and behaved disorderly under the influence of drink to satisfy the offence under Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2).

Respondent's Arguments (Accused)

The accused contended that he consumed the substance due to a stomachache.

Suggested that the accused’s condition was not indicative of a criminal offence warranting minimum sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Trimbak Dhondu, 57 Bom LR 541 (A)	Clarified that proof of consumption of prohibited liquor is irrelevant for offences under Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2); it is sufficient that the accused was drunk and behaved disorderly.	The Court relied on this precedent to reject the Magistrate’s reasoning and hold that the acquittal could not be supported on that basis.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

State v. Trimbak Dhondu, 57 Bom LR 541 (A)

Clarified that proof of consumption of prohibited liquor is irrelevant for offences under Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2); it is sufficient that the accused was drunk and behaved disorderly.

The Court relied on this precedent to reject the Magistrate’s reasoning and hold that the acquittal could not be supported on that basis.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the Magistrate’s judgment and found it rested on an erroneous legal premise that the prosecution must prove the accused consumed prohibited liquor for conviction under Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2). The Court referred to the precedent in State v. Trimbak Dhondu, which established that the nature of the liquor (prohibited or permitted) is irrelevant. The essential elements are that the accused was drunk, incapable of self-care, and behaved disorderly under the influence. The Court further considered the accused’s claim of having a stomachache and found it unpersuasive, reasoning that such a condition would more likely compel the accused to stay indoors rather than appear publicly intoxicated and disorderly. Consequently, the Court concluded the minimum sentence prescribed should be imposed. Since both offences arose out of the same incident, the Court decided that only one sentence was appropriate, imposing simple imprisonment and a fine under Section 85(1)(1).

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed, the order of acquittal is set aside, and the accused is convicted under Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

The accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days under Section 85(1)(1) and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, with default imprisonment for one week. No separate sentence is imposed for Section 85(1)(2) as both offences arise from the same incident. This decision directly affects the parties by overturning the acquittal and imposing the minimum prescribed sentence. The Court does not establish any new precedent beyond affirming the principle from the cited case that the nature of the liquor consumed is irrelevant for these offences.

State v. Tukaram Khandu, Accused .

Dixit, J.:— This is an appeal against an acquittal preferred by the State in a prosecution arising under S. 66(b) and Ss. 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The acquittal of the accused under S. 66(b) is not now challenged.

2. The finding of the Magistrate is that the accused was found drunk and was incapable of taking care of himself and also that he behaved in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that it was not shown by the prosecution that the accused had taken prohibited liquor. Now, this view cannot be supported in view of a recent decision of this Court reported in — ‘State v. Trimbak Dhondu’, 57 Bom LR 541 (A).

3. The question whether an accused person has taken prohibited liquor or permitted liquor is irrelevant for an offence under S. 85(1)(1) or S. 85(1)(2). If it is shown that an accused person was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself and also he behaved in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink, then the requirements of S. 85 are satisfied. Since the decision has proceeded upon an erroneous view of the law, the judgment cannot now be supported and must be set aside.

4. But Mr. Rele for the accused contends that the accused was suffering from a stomachache and so he happened to take the stuff. If the accused was suffering from a stomachache, it would have been more desirable for him to keep himself in-doors than to go out in a public street so as to be shown in a drunken condition and incapable of taking care of himself and also there would have been no occasion for showing that he was behaving in a disorderly-manner under the influence of drink. In our view, therefore, there are no circumstances which will compel us to give a sentence less than the ‘minimum’.

5. In the result, therefore, this appeal must succeed. The appeal will, therefore, be allowed and the order of acquittal will be set aside. We convict the respondent of offences under Ss. 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2). However, it is not necessary to impose two separate sentences in respect of both these offences. Since the two offences arise out of the same incident it would be proper to impose only one sentence. The result is that the respondent is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment under S. 85(1)(1) for a period of seven days and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week.

D.R.R

Appeal allowed.

Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 1955

State v. Tukaram Khandu, Accused .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (State)

Respondent's Arguments (Accused)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State v. Tukaram Khandu, Accused .

Comments