After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defence, Additional Sessions Court Judge S P Ponkshe expressed concern over the loss of two lives in the accident, and said, “…If the person is highly drunk, make arrangements for his stay there. What should people walking on the road do? Those who have come to the pub would not go home walking. They will go driving their vehicles. A change has to be there somewhere.”
Pune:
A Pune court hearing the accident case on Tuesday remanded three accused in police custody till May 24, and directed the pub and bar operators to decide a limit on how much liquor should be served to their customers as the latter use their own vehicles to drive back home afterwards.
The court remanded the three accused — an owner and two managers of different restaurants — in police custody.
While seeking their custody for seven days, the prosecution told the court that the establishments owned or managed by the accused served liquor to the boy and his friends without confirming his age.
Expressing concern over the loss of two lives in the accident, the judge, while remanding the three accused into police custody, came down heavily on the pub and bar operators.
On the intervening night of Saturday and Sunday, the accused juvenile along with his friends went to the two establishments between 9.30 am and 1 am and allegedly consumed liquor, the police said.
After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defence, Additional Sessions Court Judge S P Ponkshe expressed concern over the loss of two lives in the accident, and said, “…If the person is highly drunk, make arrangements for his stay there. What should people walking on the road do? Those who have come to the pub would not go home walking. They will go driving their vehicles. A change has to be there somewhere.”
She asked the establishments to decide on the limit to serve the liquor to the patrons.
“They must be aware how much should be served. Decide a limit on it,” she said.
Adv S K Jain, the defence counsel representing the three accused, opposed the police custody and said that section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act is non-cognisable, and argued that there is no need of the police custody as the investigation in the case was already done.
The prosecution, however, said that the police need to investigate the case and for that they need the custody of the accused.