Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Smt. Rozia Alex Trinedat, was convicted by the trial court under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for being in possession of 320 bottles of Indian make foreign liquor without a valid licence. The prosecution alleged that on receipt of secret information, a shed at College Wadi, Dadar, Mumbai was raided by the Flying Squad of the State Excise Department, and the applicant was found in possession of bottles containing whisky. Two bottles of 180 ml each were sealed and taken as specimens for chemical analysis. The applicant admitted she had no licence. The trial court convicted her, and the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court. In revision, the High Court examined the mandatory requirement under Section 66(2) of the Act, which requires that the sample quantity be sent for chemical analysis. The court noted that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that the sample was actually sent for analysis. The panch witness stated that the sample was taken but not sent for analysis. The court held that the mandatory requirement under Section 66(2) was not complied with, and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bombay Prohibition Act - Section 66(1)(b) and Section 66(2) - Requirement of Chemical Analysis - The prosecution must prove that the sample quantity was sent for chemical analysis as mandated by Section 66(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Failure to do so renders the conviction unsustainable. The court held that the mandatory requirement under Section 66(2) was not complied with, and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Law - Bombay Prohibition Act - Section 66(2) - Burden of Proof - The burden is on the prosecution to show compliance with Section 66(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In the absence of evidence that the sample was sent for chemical analysis, the conviction is liable to be set aside. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to send the sample quantity for chemical analysis as required by Section 66(2) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offence under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 66(2) of Bombay Prohibition Act
- 1949 mandates sending sample quantity for chemical analysis
- non-compliance vitiates conviction
- burden of proof on prosecution to show compliance
