1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4021 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. Appellant. V E R S U S Santosh Piraji Solankar. Respondent. .................................................................. Mr.B.V.Wagh, APP for applicant. Mr. A.S.More Advocate for the respondent. ................................................................... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 26.5.2010, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Latur, in STCC No.649/2008, thereby acquitting the respondent/original accused for the offence punishable under section 66 (1) (b) and 85 (1) of Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 2 290 of Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 26.5.2010 ,with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 4. Respondent i.e. original accused faced trial for the offence punishable under section 66 (1) (b) and 85 (1) of Bombay Prohibition Act and 290 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 24.12.2997 at about 09.30 p.m accused under the influence of liquor/alcohol, scuffled with one Shivaji Bhimrao Sapate and behaved in disorderly manner and thereby caused public nuisance. Prosecution examined as many as two witnesses to substantiate the said charges. PW1 PHC Kalgapure-complainant and PW 2 PHC Rathod i.e. carrier. The defence admitted the documents i.e. certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Latur dated 24.12.2007 Exh.20 and alcohol examination certificate issued by the office of Assistant Chemical Analyzer dated 31.12.2007, at Exh. 21. However, it is apparent that defence merely gave consent for exhibiting the said documents and did not admit the contents thereof. Inspite of the said position, prosecution did not examine 3 concerned Medical Officer and concerned Chemical Analyzer and hence consequently contents of the said vital documents were not proved by the prosecution and learned trial court observed that considering the evidence on record, it cannot be held that there was substantial compliance of Rule No.4 read with Provisions of Section 129-A(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and consequently, due to said non compliance, prosecution case was demolished and apparently, there is no fault in the said observation and finding given by the learned trial court. 5. Besides, PHC PW 1 Kalgapure admitted that written complaint was lodged by Shivaji, has not been placed on record and no justifiable cause/reason has been given by the prosecution. Moreover, said Shivaji has not been examined by the prosecution and said lacunae and deformities apparently sustained fatal flow to the prosecution case and there is no flaw in the observation made by the learned trial court in that respect. 6. In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court 4 is a possible view, same does not appear to be perverse, hence, no interference there in is called for under the appellate jurisdiction. Hence, present application deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, present application, being sans merit, stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ] JUDGE ... AAA/4021.10