TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government appeals acquittal of licensee for selling adulterated toddy under Bombay Abkari Act.</h1> <h3>Emperor Versus Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar</h3> Emperor Versus Ganpat Laxman Kalgutkar - TMI Issues:- Appeal by Government of Bombay against order of acquittal for breach of toddy license by licensee and servant.- Interpretation of Section 47 of the Bombay Abkari Act regarding liability of licensee for servant's actions.- Degree of care and caution expected of licensee to avoid liability for servant's offense.Analysis:1. The case involves an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of a licensee and his servant charged with breaching their toddy license by selling adulterated toddy. The licensee, absent due to illness, denied liability citing precautions taken against adulteration by employing two managers. The servant pleaded guilty, and the licensee was acquitted by the Magistrate.2. The critical issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 47 of the Bombay Abkari Act, which holds the licensee responsible for offenses committed by employees unless due and reasonable precautions were taken. The statute aims to prevent adulteration for public safety. The licensee's defense of illness and employing managers as checks on each other was accepted by the Magistrate.3. The judgment delves into the degree of care and caution expected of a licensee to escape liability for a servant's offense. The court emphasized that the licensee must take all due and reasonable precautions, not an absolute guarantee, to prevent adulteration. The statute's language is broad, requiring practical and necessary precautions to prevent transgressions, as per the test laid down by Section 47.4. The court rejected the argument that the licensee must ensure no loophole for adulteration, stating such an interpretation would be impossible and impractical. The licensee's liability should be decided based on the circumstances of each case, assessing whether reasonable and necessary precautions were taken. The court upheld the Magistrate's decision that the licensee had indeed taken the required precautions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Government of Bombay.5. In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the licensee's duty to prevent adulteration through reasonable and necessary precautions as per Section 47 of the Bombay Abkari Act. The court's analysis highlights the importance of practicality and reasonableness in assessing a licensee's liability for a servant's offense, ultimately affirming the acquittal of the licensee in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
