JUDGMENT:- The petitioner came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer S.I. for one month. The matter was carried in appeal, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, by his order dated 3.4.1998, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 103/1996, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. These orders are impugned in the present revision petition. 2. Relevant facts, in nutshell, are that: The petitioner was serving as a Constable (Buckle no.199). He was attached to the headquarter. During the relevant period, the petitioner was deputed on a guard duty at civil hospital. On 15.05.1993, Head Constable Umbari (Buckle No. 404) submitted a report to AS.I. - Tongale (PW-1) that the petitioner is absent from his duty. AS.I. Tongale, therefore, appointed another police constable for performing duty at the hospital. 3. On that day, as usual, Roll call was being taken at the Headquarter at about 8.00 p.m. Petitioner went there and threatened R.P.I - Mohan Waghul, who was taking the Roll Call and asked him to mark his attendance. The petitioner was intoxicated and was shouting at the R.P.I. In view of this conduct of the petitioner, work of taking Roll call could not be proceeded with. Thus, R.P.I. Waghul took him to the duty officer A S. I. Tongale. The petitioner was then sent to the Control room and from there to the hospital for examination. At the hospital, it was found that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. In this view of the matter, AS.I. V.D. More (PW-5) lodged a report of the occurrence. Subsequently PSI Ghodke (PW-4) obtained permission from the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad to prosecute the petitioner/accused. After the permission was granted, offence was registered. Eventually, the petitioner came to be charge-sheeted. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Judge found that offence punishable under Section 66(1)(b) is not proved. However, the offence of behaving in disorderly manner, has been established. In this view of the matter, learned Trial Judge convicted the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 5. The matter was carried in appeal. However, the offence of behaving in disorderly manner, has been established. In this view of the matter, learned Trial Judge convicted the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 5. The matter was carried in appeal. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. These orders are impugned in the present revision petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has restricted the challenged to the legality of the order of conviction and sentence. According to learned Counsel, it is obligatory for the prosecution to give the details of disorderly behaviour before convicting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the ruling of this Court, reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1704 in the matter of Ashok Hari Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra. In that case, reference was made to the decision of this Court in the matter of Popatlal Motichand Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 1977 Mh. L.J. 855, for construing the true import of the expression "disorderly behaviour". Considering the facts of the case, it was held that speaking in loud voice cannot be termed as disorderly behaviour. In the matter of Popatlal Motichand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) while construing the phrase disorderly behaviour, this Court observed in para 7 of the report, that: "Section 85 of the Bombay prohibition Act or for that matter the other provisions of the Act do not indicate as to what is meant by behaviour in a disorderly manner. It will depend upon what the word 'disorderly' connotes. Since it is not a word of art, the meaning in common parlance is to be adopted for the purpose of construing it. The dictionary meaning is "out of order, in confusion, irregular, lawless, defying restraints or on decency." As the expression "disorderly behaviour" is not defined, this Court, adopted dictionary meaning of the word 'disorderly' for construing the expression "disorderly behaviour". In the absence of a definition of the expression "disorderly behaviour", it is permissible to consider the object for which the provision is enacted for the purpose of ascertaining true import of the expression. In the absence of a definition of the expression "disorderly behaviour", it is permissible to consider the object for which the provision is enacted for the purpose of ascertaining true import of the expression. The provision makes punishable disorderly behaviour under the influence of liquor in any street, thoroughfare, public place or any place to which public have or are permitted to have access. The object, which is sought to be achieved, is to ensure that the citizens are protected from the drunkards. It would also be pertinent to refer to the relevant meaning of the expression "disorderly behaviour" given by Justice Y. V. Chandrachud in law Lexicon (1997 Edition). The expression is construed to mean a conduct which tends to cause or provoke a breach of the peace or corrupt public morals. Observing that it is impossible to state with accuracy what may be considered in law as amounting to disorderly conduct it is mentioned that the term is usually held to embrace all such acts and conduct as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals or to outrage the sense of public decency, whether committed by words or acts. 7. For proper construction of the phrase, learned A.P.P. has, referred to Section 131(1) of the Representation of the People Act, which provides punishment for disorderly conduct in or near polling station. Section 131 (1) reads : "131 penalty for disorderly conduct in or near polling stations, - (1) No person shall, on the date or dates on which a poll is taking at any polling station,- (a) ……………... (b) shout, or otherwise act in a disorderly manner, within or at the entrance of the police station or in any public or private place in the neighbourhood thereof, so as to cause annoyance to any person visiting the polling station for the poll, or so as to interfere with the work of the officers and other persons on duty at the police station." 8. Taking overall view of the matter, and keeping in mind the object for which the provision is enacted, without attempting to define the expression, it can be held that disorderly behaviour includes an obnoxious conduct which results in causing nuisance or annoyance to the public or results in offending sense of decency or preventing the victim from carrying on his vocation. 9. 9. Turning to the present case, it can be seen that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner was absent from duty throughout. After coming to the Head Quarter in drunken condition while the Roll call was in progress, the petitioner threatened PW-3 R.P.I. Waghul and asked him to mark his presence. To avoid untoward incident, R.P.I. Waghul tried to send him back by asking him to file an application for marking his presence. The petitioner persisted in his demand, did not pay any heed to the requests of R.P.I. Waghul, he was not able to maintain his balance and continued to behave arrogantly. On account of this behaviour of the petitioner, the work of taking Roll Call was stopped for about 20 minutes. This conduct of the petitioner which caused nuisance and annoyance to the policemen who had assembled for the roll call and made it impossible for R.P.I. Waghul to proceed with the roll call, does amount to disorderly behavior. Thus, contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of details of the disorderly behaviour, finding recorded by the lower courts must be treated as perverse cannot be sustained. 10. Learned Appellate Judge has properly considered all the aspects of the controversy and has referred to relevant rulings on the point involved before coming to the conclusion that rowdy behaviour of the petitioner did amount to disorderly behaviour and that the guilt has been properly brought home to the petitioner. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by learned Trial Judge and the Appellate Judge. Thus, no case for interference is made out. The revision petition therefore must fail. 11. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is involved in the litigation since the year 1993. He has suffered agony of litigation for about 13 years. The petitioner has lost his employment and is the only breadwinner for the family consisting of his wife, two children, aged about 5 and 3 years. Learned Counsel has made reference to the ruling of Gujrat High Court reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 2957 in the matter of State of Gujrat Vs. Natwar harchandji Thakor, in support of his contention that punishment less than minimum prescribed can be awarded in appropriate cases. Learned Counsel has made reference to the ruling of Gujrat High Court reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 2957 in the matter of State of Gujrat Vs. Natwar harchandji Thakor, in support of his contention that punishment less than minimum prescribed can be awarded in appropriate cases. Reference is made to the observations in para 86 of the report to the effect that: "In short in our conclusions on objective assessment and evaluation of the factual and legal profile, in this group of criminal appeals, a sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than minimum with the help of proviso and in terms of the requirements and on proof of existence of special and adequate reasons for a first offence, the Court is empowered and entitled to award less than minimum sentence on finding accused guilty either by evidence or by raising "plea of guilty". The proposition is that in appropriate cases, for special reasons, sentence less than minimum prescribed can be awarded. It is now well settled that the delay in finally deciding the controversy can be treated as a mitigating circumstance. In the present case, the incident has taken place about 13 years back. The petitioner has already lost his employment and has paid for his sins. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is the sole breadwinner for the family. Considering the circumstances, prayer for awarding less than minimum sentence, deserves to be accepted. Considering all the factors, ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to RI. for one month and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.500/-. 12. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The order of conviction is maintained. However, the order of sentence is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer RI. for fifteen days. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The petitioner shall surrender to bail before the Trial Court on or before 15th of May, 2006 to serve the sentence. Petition Partly allowed.