Control of premises can prove possession of prohibited spirit where evidence corroborates recovery and the substance qualifies as an intoxicant.

Possession of rectified spirit was attributed to the accused on the basis of his admitted control of the godown, the prosecution evidence describing the premises as under his charge, and recovery of the spirit from that location. The substance was held to fall within the statutory definition of intoxicant, as liquor and spirits of wine were covered and the chemical analysis showed high-strength ethyl alcohol; no exception for medical preparations was proved, so a permit was required. The accused's statement under Section 342 CrPC was used only to corroborate the prosecution case and not as substantive evidence, and no illegality was shown in that reliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether possession of rectified spirit could be attributed to the appellant on the basis of his control of the godown and the evidence on record; (ii) whether rectified spirit fell within the statutory definition of intoxicant so as to require a permit; (iii) whether the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be used in support of the prosecution case.

Issue (i): whether possession of rectified spirit could be attributed to the appellant on the basis of his control of the godown and the evidence on record

Analysis: The evidence of prosecution witnesses described the godown as being in the appellant's possession and charge, and that evidence was not effectively challenged. The appellant's admission that he was in charge of the godown, coupled with the recovery of a large quantity of rectified spirit from that premises and the rejection of the defence version that the goods were found elsewhere, supported the inference that the articles were in his possession. The conclusion was not dependent on a bare inference from ownership alone, but on control of the premises and corroborative facts.

Conclusion: The possession of the rectified spirit was rightly attributed to the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether rectified spirit fell within the statutory definition of intoxicant so as to require a permit

Analysis: The statutory definition treated liquor and spirits of wine as intoxicants, and the chemical analysis showed the substance recovered to be ethyl alcohol of high strength. No evidence was produced to bring the substance within any exception for medical preparations. On that basis, possession without the required permit attracted the prohibition provisions.

Conclusion: Rectified spirit fell within the statutory definition of intoxicant and required a permit.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be used in support of the prosecution case

Analysis: The statement was not treated as substantive evidence by itself. It was relied upon only to corroborate the prosecution evidence that the appellant was in charge of the godown. The exculpatory part of the statement was found inconsistent with the evidence and did not displace the prosecution case on possession of the premises.

Conclusion: The statement could be used only in support of the prosecution case, and no illegality was shown in that reliance.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld because the appellant was found in possession of prohibited rectified spirit, and the material recovered was held to be an intoxicant within the prohibitory scheme of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Possession of prohibited goods may be inferred from proved control of the premises in which they are found, especially where the surrounding evidence corroborates that control and the substance falls within the statutory definition of intoxicant.

---