Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ghudusab Ibrahim Mujawar Vs. State

Ghudusab Ibrahim Mujawar vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Nov 04, 1955
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/341736

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 1241 of 1955
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

It was adjudged that where, the accused was in the possession of the key of locked room, from which the bottles of brandy and whisky were found, it was a prima facie evidence of his possession - - There was nothing against it, and both the trial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge found that the applicant ...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Sections 66

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ghudusab Ibrahim Mujawar

Respondent

State

Advocate Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Sections 66
Reported In
AIR1956Bom225; 1956CriLJ495

Excerpt

it was adjudged that where, the accused was in the possession of the key of locked room, from which the bottles of brandy and whisky were found, it was a prima facie evidence of his possession - - there was nothing against it, and both the trial magistrate as well as the sessions judge found that the applicant was in possession of the room and consequently also of the brandy and the whisky.order1. this is an application for revision of an order of the learned judicial magistrate, first class, belgaum, cantonment, finding the applicant guilty of an offence under section 66(b) bombay prohibition act. 2. the prosecution case was that on 23-3-1954 the police went to a darga at which the applicant was sleeping and made him open .with a key which he had the lock of a room of the darga. there were found in it 12 bottles of brandy and one bottle of scotch whisky. the applicant's defence was that the room in which the brandy and whisky were found was not locked and in support of his contention he examined one witness who supported his case. the learned trial magistrate preferred, however, the evidence of the complainant jamadar and the panch gundu narayan. the panchnama also mentioned that a door of the room was opened by the applicant who had got a key with him. the applicant was asked about what he had to say about the prosecution case, when he gave no explanation as to the circumstances in which he happened to have the key of the room with him, if he was not in possession of the room. he contented himself by saying that the room was not locked. it is obvious, therefore, that he had no explanation to give as to the circumstances in which the key happened to be with him. his possession of the key of the room was prima facie evidence of his possession of the room. there was nothing against it, and both the trial magistrate as well as the sessions judge found that the applicant was in possession of the room and consequently also of the brandy and the whisky. 3. the applicant was, therefore, rightly convicted. the sentence passed upon him is not excessive. rule will, therefore, be discharged. 4. rule discharged.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is an application for revision of an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, Cantonment, finding the applicant guilty of an offence under Section 66(b) Bombay Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case was that on 23-3-1954 the police went to a darga at which the applicant was sleeping and made him open .with a key which he had the lock of a room of the darga. There were found in it 12 bottles of brandy and one bottle of Scotch whisky. The applicant's defence was that the room in which the brandy and whisky were found was not locked and in support of his contention he examined one witness who supported his case.

The learned trial Magistrate preferred, however, the evidence of the complainant Jamadar and the panch Gundu Narayan. The panchnama also mentioned that a door of the room was opened by the applicant who had got a key with him. The applicant was asked about what he had to say about the prosecution case, when he gave no explanation as to the circumstances in which he happened to have the key of the room with him, if he was not in possession of the room. He contented himself by saying that the room was not locked.

It is obvious, therefore, that he had no explanation to give as to the circumstances in which the key happened to be with him. His possession of the key of the room was prima facie evidence of his possession of the room. There was nothing against it, and both the trial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge found that the applicant was in possession of the room and consequently also of the brandy and the whisky.

3. The applicant was, therefore, rightly convicted. The sentence passed upon him is not excessive. Rule will, therefore, be discharged.

4. Rule discharged.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial