JUDGMENT - D.J. MOHARIR, J.:---This is an appeal which the State has filed to take exception to the acquittal of the respondent-accused upon the charges under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 2. The respondent accused is a Police Head-Constable and was at the material time attached to Dhebewadi Police Station, District Satara. Quite close to the Police Station are residential quarters meant for Police Constables. The respondent No. 1 living in one of these. Attached to the said Police Station were two other Constables by name Nalawade and Mulani and one Fadatare, Police Jeep Driver, entrusted with the work of driving the jeep which kept at the disposal of the said Police Station. All of them also lived in the Police-lines. One Shri Patil, was at the material time the Police Sub-Inspector in charge of Dhebewadi Police Station. 3. On 10th of May 1980 at about 9-10 p.m. the Constable Nalawade and Mulani as also the jeep driver Fadatare had performed the duty of patrolling from about 4.00 p.m. on that day. It is the prosecution case that at about 9-10 p.m. all the three of them went to eating house called 'Sujata Hotel' for having meals. As they neared the said place, on the road and in the light of the jeep they saw the respondent-accused, Head Constable Narayan Sitaram Chavan, indulging in shouting abuses and obscenities and behaving in a disorderly manner. On getting down from the jeep they saw that accused was under influence of liquor. In this situation, all these three Policemen caught hold of the accused, put him in jeep and took him to the Police Station. P.S.I. Patil, was present at the Police Station and directed that accused be immediately taken to the Medical Officer at the place for his medical examination. The respondent was accordingly taken to the Primary Health Centre. The Medical Officer Dr. Karan J. Wadekar, carried out a clinical examination. He also took sample of blood of accused which was subsequently forwarded to the Chemical Analyser at Pune. Report on the condition of respondent-accused was also furnished to the P.S.I. by the Medical Officer. The respondent was accordingly taken to the Primary Health Centre. The Medical Officer Dr. Karan J. Wadekar, carried out a clinical examination. He also took sample of blood of accused which was subsequently forwarded to the Chemical Analyser at Pune. Report on the condition of respondent-accused was also furnished to the P.S.I. by the Medical Officer. An offence was then registered against the accused and in view of the alcohol examination, certificate issued by the Medical Officer also the report subsequently furnished upon the blood examination as to the contents and percentage of the alcohol therein, the accused was charge sheeted under section 66(1) and also under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. He was also further charged under section 110 read with section 117 of the Bombay Police Act for indecent behaviour in a public place. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried and submitted that he had neither been under the influence of the drink at any time nor had he been found behaving in such manner under the influence of alcohol in a public place. According to him there was bad blood between him and the P.S.I. Patil. Police Constables Mulani and Nalawade and jeep driver Phadatare were of persons who were under the thumb of and sided with the said P.S.I. Patil. It was at the instance of Patil that they had falsely implicated him. Infact he further submitted that he was at the material time preparing food in his residential quarters when these three Policemen i.e., driver Phadatare and constables Nalawade and Mulani came to his room and forcibly took him to the Police Station beating him all the way and he had sustained injuries by this beating. 5. Infact he further submitted that he was at the material time preparing food in his residential quarters when these three Policemen i.e., driver Phadatare and constables Nalawade and Mulani came to his room and forcibly took him to the Police Station beating him all the way and he had sustained injuries by this beating. 5. The trial of the case therefore, proceeded and upon consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate recorded finding of the facts to the effect that the place of the incident in this case remained undetermined by the prosecution evidence i.e. it was not proved that the accused had been in the first place would found in a public place i.e. on a public road in front of the hotel and in so far as the case of consumption of prohibited liquor and having thereby committed an offence under-section 66(1)(b) of the Act was concerned, the consumption of such liquor even if assumed, still remained properly explained by the fact that the respondent-accused held a proper permit for consumption of foreign liquor also. The trial Court also found that indeed as contended by the accused he had sustained injuries which the prosecution had not explained and because of which the plausibility of the accused's explanation that these injuries been result of assault on him at the instigation of P.S.I. Patil was rendered quite probable. The learned Magistrate was doubtful whether the sample of the accused blood had been properly taken i.e. whether the rules pertaining to the taking of the sample of blood had been properly followed. The contentions that the sample had not been taken in the prescribed manner could not be ruled out. On these findings the learned magistrate therefore pleased to hold that neither the offence under section 66(1)(b) nor section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was proved against the accused. He therefore, acquitted the accused. The State Government has now challenged this acquittal by this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Her first submission is that as many as 4 witnesses have been examined to testify in support of the accused having been found in a public place i.e. on the road in front of 'Sujata Hotel', in a condition over-come with alcohol. 6. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Her first submission is that as many as 4 witnesses have been examined to testify in support of the accused having been found in a public place i.e. on the road in front of 'Sujata Hotel', in a condition over-come with alcohol. Mere plurality of the prosecution witnesses does not matter; what has to be ascertained is the truth for which even the testimony of single one can suffice provided it is true and reliable. In the present case the evidence of the two Constables Mulani and Nalawade as also the jeep driver Phatdare and then the son of the owner of Hotel Sujata, one Mr. Hanmant Parshuram Pawar, would appear not to be reliable, cogent and satisfactory. The requirement of the creditability required of these witnesses is not fulfilled. According to P.W. 1, the jeep driver Phatdhare, he had been accompanied by the Constables Nalawade and Mulani for patrolling in the jeep. All three of them had gone to Sujata Hotel for meals at about 9-00 p.m. on 10-5-1988. Phadtare, in his statement stated that he had actually entered the said eating house. He says that it was inside the hotel that he had found the accused, under the influence of the drink and indulging in shouting and giving abuses. On cross-examination he asserts that accused was present inside the hotel and that they had brought him to the Police Station from inside the Hotel. In direct contradiction with these assertions about the respondent accused having been found inside the hotel, is version of the Police Constable Mulani P.W. 5 and Nalawade P.W. 2. They deposed that while they were on the way to Sujata Hotel or some where near that place, they saw the respondent-accused on the road in the light of their jeep. Both of them stated that the accused was shouting and uttering flithy and abusive words, that he was therefore, disorderly in his behaviour. They deposed that while they were on the way to Sujata Hotel or some where near that place, they saw the respondent-accused on the road in the light of their jeep. Both of them stated that the accused was shouting and uttering flithy and abusive words, that he was therefore, disorderly in his behaviour. But the material position is that although these Constables said that it was on the road outside the Sujata Hotel that the accused was seen, that as many as 10 to 12 persons, were present on the road at that time as is also their evidence, yet none of these persons, the road users, have been examined, as witnesses to testify to such abusive and disorderly manner of the accused's behaviour and as being under influence of the alcohol. According to Mulani it was from the road infront of Sujata Hotel and very specifically not from inside the hotel that the accused had been collected and taken to the Police Station. The jeep driver Phadtare had received no corroboration from, Hanmant Parshuram Pawar, P.W. 6 who is the son of the owner of Hotel Sujata and was at the material time attending to the counter. He says that the accused was inside the hotel on that evening, under the influence of alcohol and had indulged in throwing away the dinner plates etc. in which meals has been served to him. Phadtare P.W. 2 speaks nothing about such behaviour and acts of accused. Hanmanta also stated that it was there after that the accused had gone out of the said hotel. In support of behaviour of the accused inside the hotel, there is no other independent witness. No customer in the hotel at the material time would appear to have been examined by the prosecution. As it is P.W. Hanmant Pawar, contradicts in clear terms the testimony of Phatdare that the accused was inside the hotel and was taken on the Police Station from there. P.c. Nalawade, asserts, to contradict Hanmant and Phadtare that the accused had not been seen inside the hotel, that neither he nor Phadtare had entered the hotel. Hanumant, is also positive that no policemen had been to his hotel that night. Hanmanta has admitted that Police frequent his hotel and he has to be on good terms with them meaning, submissive to them lest the hotel business should be adversely affected. 7. Hanumant, is also positive that no policemen had been to his hotel that night. Hanmanta has admitted that Police frequent his hotel and he has to be on good terms with them meaning, submissive to them lest the hotel business should be adversely affected. 7. The accused was found to have sustained some injuries including one on his chin. This fact also been noted in the panchanama of his arrest Ex. 20. How it came to be caused remains unexplained by the prosecution. All the three policemen P.W. Phadtare, Nalawade and Mulani are studiously silent about the injured and bleeding condition of the accused. 8. On being taken to the Police Station, he was further produced before the Medical Officer who says that he found accused under influence of alcohol. The alcohol examination certificate Ex. 16 shows that accused's gait was unsteady, his speech was incoherent. There were other symptoms which to the satisfaction of the Medical Officer also showed accused to be under influence of alcohol e.g. memory was confused. His speech was slurred and incoherent and breath was smelling of alcohol. If this certificate Exh. 16 about the condition of the accused is accepted as true and if it is also possible to hold that in such an inebricated condition he was indeed found in a public place i.e. on a public road, it would no doubt amount to an offence under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. But indeed whether the accused was found in a public place as such, is itself a matter of controversy. The learned Magistrate was inclined to doubt the prosecution evidence and to accept the explanation and the evidence put forward by the accused in defence. 9. Let me first deal with the charge under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act viz., consumption or prohibited liquor. For this offence it is not at all necessary that the person be found in a public place. However, what the accused has explained is that he had consumed beer. Consuming beer does not require him to hold a permit as such, though all this apart, the accused in fact, holds a license for consumption of liquor. For this offence it is not at all necessary that the person be found in a public place. However, what the accused has explained is that he had consumed beer. Consuming beer does not require him to hold a permit as such, though all this apart, the accused in fact, holds a license for consumption of liquor. The said permit a valid one, was produced by him before the Court during his examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that production of that permit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly enough concedes that proceeding to convict the accused under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition was indeed difficult for the Court and as difficult for urge. 10. As far as the offence punishable under section 85(1) of the Bombay. Prohibition Act, apart from serious discrepancies which have been entered the prosecution evidence in regard to the place where the accused was found or from where he was taken to the Police Station, the accused has specifically submitted in his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code that it was while he was preparing food in his residential quarters that evening that the said Constable Mulani, Nalawade is also Phadatare the jeep driver, came and asked him to accompany them when he declined he was forcibly taken to the Police Station. The accused states that "the Constables dragged me and took me out of the room. They had then felled me down in the court-yard (angan). The said three persons had done showing and prommelling to me. I had sustained hurt under my chin and the upper side of ear". At that time, as he stated, one Tukaram Baburao Badkhale, was also present. The said person has also been examined by accused as a defence witness and has deposed that he had met accused in the Bus near Wingphata where he boarded the bus. He was known to the accused. The accused had invited him for dinner. Therefore, he had accompanied the accused to his residential quarters. This witness therefore further testified that while the two of them had consumed beer and whisky in the accused's residential quarter, the Police Constables Mulani, Phadtare and Nalawade came there and forcibly took the accused out of room, giving fist blows to him. The accused had invited him for dinner. Therefore, he had accompanied the accused to his residential quarters. This witness therefore further testified that while the two of them had consumed beer and whisky in the accused's residential quarter, the Police Constables Mulani, Phadtare and Nalawade came there and forcibly took the accused out of room, giving fist blows to him. Police Constable Nalawade had given fist blows and due to the ring on the finger, respondent-accused had sustained injury under his chin. The witness very clearly denied that the accused was found in front of Sujata Hotel on the road or was indulging in abusive and obscure outbursts. The injured conditions of the accused has also been admitted by Pancha witness Sadashiv Sopana Kachare, P.W. 4. However, he has not mentioned this injury in his examination-in-chief. Why this omission occurred also stands explained when one consider his cross-examination. The witness's brother is also a Police Sub-Inspector. He also admits that he often visits the Police Station at Dhebewadi. He also admitted that accused's clothes were blood stained at that time. Considering the fact that his brother Kashinath is P.S.I. that this brother and P.S.I. Patil know each other and other circumstances, it appears that it is at the instance of P.S.I. Patil, that Sadashiv Kachare, must have deposed, in favour of Police. 11. In the circumstances the learned Magistrate was, as regards the offence under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, also justified in holding that the prosecution case about disorderly behaviour in a public place under the influence of alcohol as such had remained for from established by the prosecution evidence and therefore the charge under section 85(1) was also unsustainable. There are more valid reasons for the decision of the trial Court holding that the charge under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act had not been proved. The sample of blood was taken in sodium citrate bulb. It was abundantly clear from the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Karanjwadekar, P.W. 3 that on the material day, there was no stock of sodium citrate bulbs in the dispensary at Dhebewadi. Having been questioned about this fact, this witness attempted to explain that a sodium citrate bulb had been procured from some private medical practitioners or from other private source. Karanjwadekar, P.W. 3 that on the material day, there was no stock of sodium citrate bulbs in the dispensary at Dhebewadi. Having been questioned about this fact, this witness attempted to explain that a sodium citrate bulb had been procured from some private medical practitioners or from other private source. He admits that even a requisition in writing for supply of such sodium citrate bulb was not made upon any private practitioner or source, nor was it purchased. It appears that apart from this unsatisfactory explanation, if one has regard to the cross-examination of Dr. Karanjwadekar it needs to be noted that panchanama of arrest and condition of the accused, upon his being taken to the Police Station, was drawn up between 9-25 and 9-45 p.m. Dr. Karanjwadekar states that it was at 10-00 p.m. that he had examined the accused. While the panchanama Ex. 20 does specifically mentions the injure condition of the accused, Dr. Karanjwadekar deposes obviously to oblige the Police, that he did not find any such injury on the person of the accused nor did he find blood stains on clothes of the accused. This marks out the witness as being under the influence of the P.S.I. He has confessed that it was on 11-5-1988 at about 2-30 a.m. that he had handed over sample blood bulb to the Police Constable. If the medical examination itself was at 10-00 p.m. and the sample of blood had been taken at that very time, it is difficult to find explanation for the delay in handing over sample bottle to Police at as late an hour as 2-45 a.m. It is to my mind, the suspicious story about procuring of sodium citrate bulb from somewhere and also the fact that the bulb was sent to the Chemical Analyser 24 hours after the collection of blood sample, which contribute to the doubt about the genuineness of the samples of the blood that was forwarded to the Chemical Analyser. For these reasons, therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate that the charge under section 66(1)(b) of the Act was not proved must also be found as entirely unexceptionable and be upheld. The appeal thus fails and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----