JUDGMENT - PADHYE, J.:---The State has filed this application for enchancement of the sentence The respondent-accused was put up before the Magistrate for the offence under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act as it then stood. The offence was said to have been committed on 16-11-1972 and e was put up before the Magistrate on 17-11-1972 on which date he admitted his guilt and he was sentenced to S.I for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- in defualt to suffer further S.I for 7 days. 2. The charge against the accused was tat he consumed country liquor on 16-11-1972 without permit and unlawfully and he was unable to take care of himself and he was found drunk on a public road. 3. It has been contended that the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal, as under section 85(1)(3) the minimum sentence for the first offence is imprisonment for a term which may extent to one month and fine which may extend to two hundred rupees and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary even such imprisonment shall not be less than seven days and fine shall not be less than twenty-five rupees. The learned Magistrate therefore, according to the State, could not have give a sentence of less than seven days and impose a fine not less than Rs. 25/- in any case. 4. It is true that on his own admission on the accused had consumed liquor and that he had doe so without any permit for consuming liquor. Technically therefore he has committed an offence under section 85(1)(3) of the Act and is liable to be punished. It may, however, be noted that section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act has been amende by Act No. 33 of 1972 which was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 21-9-1972. This amendment however has come into force on 21-2-1974. By this amendment original section 85(1)(3) has been deted and person found drunk without holding a permit is not considered to be an offence under the new amendment, When the offence in question was committed the amendment was made and this could be a special and adequate reason for passing a lesser sentence. By this amendment original section 85(1)(3) has been deted and person found drunk without holding a permit is not considered to be an offence under the new amendment, When the offence in question was committed the amendment was made and this could be a special and adequate reason for passing a lesser sentence. Except that the accused was found frunk and tat he had no permit there is nothing to show that he was behaving in any disorderly manner or he was causing any nuisance to other. 5. When the prohibition policy has been relaxed by the Government and now in certain cases of liquors no permit is even necessary or the permits are liberally issued, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by enchancing the sentence already imposed. I therefore do not propose to interfere in this petition. 6. The rule is discharged. -----