Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by two appellants convicted under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for possession of a still and illicit liquor. The appellants were found guilty by the Presidency Magistrate, who sentenced appellant No. 1 to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, while appellant No. 2 received a 6-month sentence and a fine of Rs. 500. The High Court later set aside some convictions but maintained the conviction under Section 65(f) based on the presumption arising from Section 103 of the Act. The prosecution's case was based on a search that revealed a working still and illicit liquor at the premises occupied by appellant No. 1. The appellants contended that the presumption under Section 103 could not arise as they were not given an opportunity to rebut it during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court analyzed whether the presumption was applicable and whether the appellants were prejudiced by the lack of specific questions during their examination. The court concluded that appellant No. 1 was in possession of a still used for manufacturing intoxicants, thus upholding his conviction. However, it found that appellant No. 2, being merely a servant, could not be held liable for possession without evidence of aiding in the crime, leading to the allowance of his appeal and setting aside his conviction. The court dismissed the appeal of appellant No. 1, affirming the sentence imposed by the High Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Presumption of Possession - Applicability of Section 103 - Presumption arises when a person is found in possession of a still or apparatus for manufacturing intoxicants - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 342 - The court held that no prejudice was caused to the accused when he denied knowledge of the articles recovered, and the presumption under Section 103 was applicable to uphold the conviction (Paras 516-522). B) Criminal Law - Employee's Liability - Possession of contraband by servant - No presumption against employee without evidence of aiding master - Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(f) - The court found that the employee could not be held liable for possession of the still as he was merely following orders and had no knowledge of the contraband, leading to the allowance of his appeal (Paras 520-522).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the presumption under Section 103 of the Bombay Prohibition Act could be applied without giving the accused an opportunity to rebut it.
Final Decision
The appeal of appellant No. 2 was allowed, and his conviction and sentence were set aside. The appeal of appellant No. 1 was dismissed, and his conviction under Section 65(f) was upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption of possession
- Criminal Procedure
- Prohibition Act
- Appeal dismissal
- Evidence standards
