Statutory defence against toddy adulteration upheld where the licensee proved reasonable precautions and prudent supervision.

A licensee charged with toddy adulteration was entitled to the statutory defence where he proved due and reasonable precautions to prevent the offence. Section 46(e) imposed liability for keeping or exposing for sale toddy not of the authorised nature, substance or quality, but Section 47 relieved the licensee if he showed practical precautions that a prudent person would take in the circumstances, not an absolute guarantee against adulteration. Here, the licensee had appointed two managers to supervise each other, regularly checked the booth until illness prevented attendance, and an earlier surprise raid had found the toddy pure. The statutory defence was established and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the licensee had established that he exercised all due and reasonable precautions to prevent adulteration of toddy by his servant so as to attract the statutory defence under Section 47 of the Bombay Abkari Act.

Analysis: Section 46(e) made a licensee and persons acting in his employ liable for keeping or exposing for sale toddy not of the authorised nature, substance or quality. Section 47 relieved the licensee from liability if he proved that all due and reasonable precautions were exercised to prevent the offence. The standard was not an absolute guarantee against any adulteration, but precautions that were reasonable, practical and such as a prudent person would take in the circumstances. On the facts, the licensee had employed two managers to check each other, had regularly supervised the booth until illness prevented his attendance, and an earlier surprise raid had found the toddy pure.

Conclusion: The respondent had established the statutory defence under Section 47. The acquittal was and the appeal failed.

---