hvn 4//wp//84.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2011 Chandrakant Mansaram More and Ors. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5769 OF 2010 Vinaykumar and Ors. . ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Samir Vaidya, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. No.84 of 2011.. Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. Nihar Ghag i/by Mr. R. Shirodkar & Archit Sakhalkar for applicants in Cri.ApplnNo.5769 of 2010. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State in both matters. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2011 P.C. Affidavit in reply tendered by the learned A.P.P. a copy of which 1 hvn 4//wp//84.11 is received by the counsel for the petitioner. 2. On 26.8.2008 based on information raid was conducted wherein 10 to 12 women with accused/applicants and several others were found behaving in indecent manner. The room was full with 10 ruppes currency notes scattered all over and 10 to 15 empty and half filled up with liquor glasses were on table. The programme of dancing was going on, on the music system. The amount of Rs.1,26,270/- was seized. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants in both the matters submits that the applicants are responsible officers from customs or other departments. Few of them had permanent permit to possess or consume liquor of foreign origin while few of the applicants had temporary permits. 4. At this stage, without dissecting to the merits of the temporary permits as its worth is yet to be established, as on primary analysis a doubt about its issuance of date and even chronological number is crept in, it is for those of the accused/applicants by way of defence to establish that indeed they had temporary permit for a day which they had officially procured. 2 hvn 4//wp//84.11 5. The learned A.P.P. informs that section 85 of the Bombay Police Act, 1949 provides for penalty for being drunk and for behaving disorderly. There cannot be quarrel about the proposition of law contemplated by section 85. The crux prima facie to be seen is, whether the said activities of disorderly behaviour had taken place at the public place or the place where it had access to public at large. On reading the papers, it does not appear that the applicant officers had caused any disorderly behaviour in the public place. Statement of the Manager of the said premises was recorded. However, that by itself at this stage will not primarily indict accused/applicant who had permanent permit to consume liquor. Consequently, Criminal application No. 5769 of 2010 is partly allowed to the extent of following applicants : S.No. Name Permit No. Valid till 1. Vangeti Ramesh Babu 741795 Life time 2. Vinay Kumar 886095 13.08.2009 3. Anupam Khosta 070310 15.08.2009 4. Mahesh Vasant Jadhav 741778 Life time 5. Anwar Ismail Khan 247024 11.12.2008 6. Vimal Sonaja 956298 Life time 7. Om Prakash Pandey 934463 Life time 8. Gurucharan Balkrishna Rao 934407 Life time 9. Satish N. Uchil 717551 Life time 10. Rajesh B. Dhone 070309 15.08.2009 11. G. Vijayaraghavan 200089 19.08.2009 3 hvn 4//wp//84.11 6. In so far as Cri. W.P. No. 84 of 2011 is concerned, only petitioner no. 1 Chandrakant Mansaram More having permanent licence No. 914015 (life time) is discharged. 7. Petitions partly allowed to the extent above. 8. The observations made in this order are restricted to the case of present petitioners only. 9. The learned Judge seized with the matter shall entertain exemption applications, on its own merits, if moved by the applicants, whose application is rejected today. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 4