CR.A/44/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 44 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus KOLI KANA PARBAT BELGAM - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Ms D.S. Pandit, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, MS TEJAL K SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 11/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The State of Gujarat, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the judgment and order dated 20.7.1989 CR.A/44/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavadar in Summary Case No.406/89, convicting the respondent-Koli Kana Parbat for the offence punishable under section 66(1)(b), 65 (b), (c),(d), (e), (f) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. He was sentenced to suffer 10 days simple imprisonment and also fined Rs.50/-, in default, 2 days. 2. Heard the learned APP, Ms. D.S. Pandit. Ms. Tejal K Shah, learned advocate for the opponent- accused was not present when the matter was called out. 3. The incident in question took place on 10.12.1985 at 17.50 hrs. The accused was found in possession of huge quantity of prohibited liquor and wash. The accused pleaded guilty and submitted that he is a poor person and as this is his first offence and as he is having liability of maintaining his family consisting of his wife and two small daughters, a lenient view may be taken. Taking into consideration his submission, the court has imposed CR.A/44/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT the above referred sentence. 3. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, as after taking into consideration the financial background and the social status of the accused, the court has passed the above referred order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp