3 convicted for misbehaving with police in drunk state

The three were sentenced to imprisonment for one month – the term which they have already served after they were arrested in the case on December 28, 2018. All of them were released on bail on February 6, 2019.

Mumbai: Three men were sentenced to a month in prison for creating a ruckus in the Andheri police station while they were under the influence of alcohol in 2018. Such acts of drunken people disturb the public peace, moral or safety of general public, the court said.

The inebriated trio allegedly pulled the NC (non-cognisable complaints) Register from the police personnel, who were registering a case against them, shouted and used abusive language in the police station, behaved arrogantly, made offensive expressions or gestures and threatened police personnel. (Getty Images)

“The offence has been committed against the public servant in police station and they suffered injury. These types of offences cause the sense of shock and insecurity to public servants,” added the court.

The three were sentenced to imprisonment for one month – the term which they have already served after they were arrested in the case on December 28, 2018. All of them were released on bail on February 6, 2019.

According to the prosecution, in December 2018, Manish More (30), Abhinav Tapkirkar (30), Sainath Mane (29) were brought to the Andheri police station after receiving a complaint. Before the police could even register a case against them, the trio began creating a ruckus in the police station itself.

The inebriated trio allegedly pulled the NC (non-cognisable complaints) Register from the police personnel, who were registering a case against them, shouted and used abusive language in the police station, behaved arrogantly, made offensive expressions or gestures and threatened police personnel.

Their lawyer contended that the prosecution had failed to produce the CCTV footage of the police station to prove the alleged incident. Also, it was contended that there was delay in recording statements. Besides, he argued that the blood samples of the accused were sent for chemical analysis, 16 days after the incident. Therefore, the chemical analysis report was of no evidentiary value at all.

The court rejected the defence and held that if the oral evidence inspired the confidence of the court regarding a fact, non-production of the CCTV footage will not be fatal to the prosecution case. Besides, the court said, “The defective investigation cannot be a ground to acquit the accused if the prosecution evidence is cogent, trustworthy regarding misconduct or disorderly behaviour of the accused.”