State Vs. Tukaram Khandu

.....section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is frame d at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint. in other words, if there is no mention of the caste of the accused in the fir, that cannot be a ground for either not registering the offence under section 3 of the act or for quashing such complaint - trimbak dhondu' 57 bom lr 541 (a). the question whether an accused person has taken prohibited liquor or permitted liquor is irrelevant for an offence under section 85(1)(1) or section 85(1)(2). if it is shown that an accused person was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself and also he behaved in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink, then the requirements of section 85 are satisfied......that the accused had taken prohibited liquor. now, this view cannot be supported in view of a recent decision of this court reported in -- 'state v. trimbak dhondu' 57 bom lr 541 (a).the question whether an accused person has taken prohibited liquor or permitted liquor is irrelevant for an offence under section 85(1)(1) or section 85(1)(2). if it is shown that an accused person was drunk and incapable of taking care of himself and also he behaved in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink, then the requirements of section 85 are satisfied. since the decision has proceeded upon an erroneous view of the law, the judgment cannot now be supported and must be set aside.3. but mr. rele for the accused contends that the accused was suffering from a stomachache and so he happened to take the stuff. if the accused was suffering from a stomachache, it would have been more desirable for him to keep himself in-doors than to go out in a public street so as to be shown in a drunken condition and incapable of taking care of himself and also there would have been no occasion for showing that he was behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. in our view, therefore, there are no circumstances which will compel us to give a sentence less than the 'minimum'.4. in the result, therefore, this appeal must succeed. the appeal will, therefore, be allowed and the order of acquittal will be set aside. we convict the respondent of offences under ss. 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2). however, it is not necessary to impose two separate sentences in respect of both these offences. since the two offences arise out of the same incident it would be proper to impose only one sentence. the result is that the respondent is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment under section 85(1)(1) for a period of seven days and also to pay a fine of rs. 25/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week.5. appeal allowed.