Allowed

Vishnu Aambo Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2013APPA/260/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal concerning illicit liquor manufacturing causing deaths, the court examined sufficiency of evidence via disclosure memorandum. Finding prima facie case for suspension grounded on evidentiary gaps, the court allowed bail pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence suspended; applicant released on bail by executing a Rs. 50,000 PR bond with sureties and reporting to DC.B. CID every three months.

Vishnu Aambo Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2013)

appa-260-13

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2013

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2012

Vishnu Aambo Mhatre

(Org.Accd.No.4)

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

Mr. M. S. Mohite i/by Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State.

¶14

CORAM: P. V. HARDAS & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. AUGUST 21, 2013.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

By this application, the applicant / original accused no.4 seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal.

¶17

The applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to

¶18

¶19

appa-260-13

¶20

imprisonment for life as well as payment of fine. The applicant also stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 328, 324, 272, 273 of IPC and under Sections 65(d), 65(e) and 65(f) of the Bombay Prohibition Act with the appropriate sentences being passed against him.

¶21

On account of consumption of illicit liquor, nearly 87 persons had died and 117 persons were hospitalized. The applicant along with other accused was charged for various offences. It appears that the principal allegation against the applicant was that he was the manufacturer of illicit liquor and in connivance with other accused certain chemical was mixed in the illicit liquor which ultimately resulted in the death of 87 persons and hospitalization of 117 persons.

¶22

With the assistance of Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial court. The learned APP has pointed out that in support of the conviction of the applicant, there is a disclosure memorandum at Exh. 331, which led to the discovery of the place where the still and other articles used in the distillation / manufacture of the liquor were noticed. A coaccused of the applicant is alleged to have pointed out a place where the

¶23

¶24

appa-260-13

¶25

illicit liquor was mixed with the chemicals and pursuant to the disclosure memorandum, articles used in mixing of the illicit liquor were seized. The only evidence, therefore, against the present applicant is a disclosure memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at Exh. 331 which led to the discovery of the place where still and other articles used in the distillation / manufacture of the illicit liquor were found.

¶26

It is urged by Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid disclosure memorandum at Exh. 331 would not be admissible as disclosure memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the light of the fact that the police were already aware about the place. We need not dilate much on this aspect of the case as it is ultimately a matter of appreciation of evidence. However, we find that merely because a disclosure memorandum was recorded and the applicant had pointed out the place where certain still and other articles used in the distillation / manufacture of the illicit liquor were found, prima facie, would not amount to establishing a nexus of the applicant with the manufacture of the illicit liquor, consumption of which resulted in death of

87 persons.

appa-260-13

We further find that the applicant was on bail during trial and

¶31

up-till now he has undergone an imprisonment of seven and half years. In the light of what had been held by us above, we find that the case has been made out by the applicant for suspending the substantive sentence and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal.

¶32

We accordingly allow this application and suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and direct that the applicant be released on bail on the applicant executing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, on the condition that the applicant shall attend the office of the D.C.B. C.I.D., Unit – VII, Mumbai once in three months on first Saturday of the quarter between 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.

¶33

8. Application is allowed accordingly.

¶34

(REVATI MOHITE DERE,J.) (P. V. HARDAS,J.)

Vishnu Aambo Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Aambo Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh @ Ramchandra Laxman Bhopi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Roshan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Vijay Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Milind v. Yawatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Balwant Joshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mukund Balwant Athavale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.