..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4626 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Deepak Anant Bhingarde and Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Applicant-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 13th June, 2008. DATED : 13th June, 2008. DATED : 13th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd June, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Khed on deputation at Ratnagiri in Special Case No.5 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted respondents- accused Nos.1 & 2 of the offence under Section 20(1)(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused ..(2).. persons who here husband and wife were running a tea-stall near the bus-stand. According to the complainant wooden cupboard was found in the tea-stall and it was locked. They asked the accused No.1 to open the lock and they found ten to twelve bottles therein containing whisky. Some packets were also found in the open space below the shed of the tea-stall and 3-4 small plastic bags containing ganja weighing about 13 gms. were found in it. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP for the applicant-State. 4. The complainant PW-1 PI Vijaykumar Chougule has stated that the liquor bottles were found in the cupboard in the tea-stall. However, the complaint as well as the panchnama (Exh.13 & 12) show that a wooden box in which the liquor bottles were found was found to the west of the tea-stall. Thus, the complaint and the panchnama show that ..(3).. the box containing liquor bottles was not found inside the tea-stall, but, it was found outside the tea-stall. This is further clear from the cross-examination of the complainant wherein he has admitted that no objectionable was found in the stall of the accused. Panch witness PW-3 Pawar is also not certain regarding where the box containing liquor bottles was found. 5. According to the complainant the accused was asked to open the cupboard containing liquor bottles and accused No.1 opened the said cupboard. However, police constable PW-2 Surve has stated that the cupboard was opened by the police. Thus, there is material contradiction in this regard. 6. It is further the prosecution case that 3-4 small plastic bags were found below the shed of the tea-stall. In these small bags 13 gms. of ganja was found. The complainant PW-1 PI Chougule has stated that the accused was running a tea-stall and a cupboard was found inside the tea-stall. On the contrary PW-2 Police Constable Surve and PW-3 Pawar have deposed that tea-stall ..(4).. is actually handcart. This contradiction also raises doubt in mind about the prosecution case. 7. PW-1 P.I. Chougule has stated that 3-4 small plastic bags were found below the shed of the tea-stall. However, PW-2 & PW-3 have stated that it was found below the wheels of the handcart. It has come on record that the place where the liquor and bags were found near the cart was near the bus-stand. In such case the place below the wheels of handcart is accessible to all and it cannot be said that the accused was in conscious possession of the ganja found below the wheels of the cart. The witnesses are not certain as to where the box containing liquor was actually found. Some witnesses say it was found in a cupboard in the tea-stall whereas PW-2 & PW-3 have stated that the liquor bottles were found in a box which was to the west of the tea stall of the accused persons. There are many stalls near the stall of the accused and it is a crowded locality. In such case, it cannot be said that the accused were in conscious possession of the liquor bottles which were found in a box to the west of their tea ..(5).. stall. Moreover, it is seen that the complainant is totally silent about taking sample from the liquor bottles. 8. Looking to all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused. 9. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)