JUDGMENT -Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal revision application is filed by the petitioner/original accused, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th December, 1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nashik, dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 2.The petitioner/original accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The facts which are required to be stated are as follows: There was a Bhajan Programme going on in the Village Shirwade on 25th August, 1988. P.W 1 Police Constable No. 280 Gangadhar Pelmahale and P.W. 3 Police Head Constable No. 1163 Bagul were on bandobast duty at the village, as there was Harinam Saptaha. On that day, at about 6.30 p.m. the accused came over to the spot where the said Harinam Saptaha programme was going on, and he was shouting in loud voice and was behaving in a disorderly manner. The constable therefore, caught hold of him and found that he was under the influence of alcohol. Two witnesses were called. They also took the smell of the breath of the accused, which was smelling of alcohol. The person gave his name as Ashok Yashwant Aware, who is the accused before the Court. Police Head Constable Bagul caught hold of him and took him to Lasalgaon Police Station. He also made a phone call to the Police Station and called a jeep. The accused was taken to the Medical Officer, who examined him and certified that he was under the influence of alcohol. Thereafter, P.W. 1 Police Constable Pelmahale lodged complaint in the Police Station. Crime No. 89 of 1988 for the offence punishable under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was registered against the accused. All the formalities were completed and the charge-sheet to be filed in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class. The learned Magistrate, after recording evidence and after hearing both the sides, sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rupees Five Hundred, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three weeks more for the offence punishable under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act in Summary Case No. 814 of 1988. 3.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Niphad, the accused preferred appeal being No. 14 of 1990 in Sessions Court at Nashik. 3.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Niphad, the accused preferred appeal being No. 14 of 1990 in Sessions Court at Nashik. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the sides, confirmed the finding of guilt of the accused and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of appeal, the accused has approached this Court, by way of present Criminal revision application. 4.I have heard both the Advocates at length. Mr. P.N. Joshi, appearing for the petitioner/original accused submitted that there was no evidence before the lower Court about the alleged behaviour of the accused, so as to term it as "disorderly behaviour". To substantiate his argument, he relied on (Popatlal Motichand Shah v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1977 Mh.L.J 855 wherein words of abuses were uttered by the accused. The Court came to the conclusion that since details of the alleged behaviour and the exact words of abuses were not stated, it cannot be termed as a 'disorederly behaviour'. 5.In the present case at hand, P.W. 1 has stated that accused obstructed the Harinam Saptaha programme by shouting. While P.W. 3 has not stated anything about the obstruction, but has stated that accused was only 'shouting'. The doctor who examined the accused, has not stepped in the witness box. Therefore, the Doctor's Certificate is not duly proved as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 6.Mrs. Usha Kejariwal, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, made a faint attempt to argue that the incident had taken place in a public place and the medical certificate is exhibited. Getting the document exhibited is one thing, however, when the doctor who issued the Medical Certificate is not examined by the prosecution, the evidentiary value of the Medical Certificate is diminished. As far as the alleged incident, happening in public place is concerned, the accused does not appear to have denied his presence there or the fact that the said place where the Harinam Saptaha Programme was going on was a public place. However, nothing has come on record as to in what way, he was shouting, what were the words which he was shouting, so as to constitute disorderly behaviour. It must be said that the material with regard to that is very much scanty. However, nothing has come on record as to in what way, he was shouting, what were the words which he was shouting, so as to constitute disorderly behaviour. It must be said that the material with regard to that is very much scanty. 7.Normally, when there is a concurrent finding of lower courts, this Court should not interfere in the revision. However, in the present case at hand, it appears that both the courts below have arrived at the finding of guilt, without there being any particulars about the so-called disorderly behaviour of the accused. Judgment of this Court reported in 1977 Mh.L.J 855 (supra), has also come in aid of the accused in as much as, no particulars of so-called disorderly behaviour has been narrated by any of the witnesses. The panch witness also became hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. It was, therefore, erroneous on the part of the Lower Court to arrive at the findings of the guilt, on the basis of this scanty material before it. Hence, the following order: Revision Application No. 289 of 1992 is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a). Rule accordingly made absolute. Application allowed. -----