TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal Dismissed: Conviction for Possessing Rectified Spirit Without Permit Upheld Under Bombay Prohibition Act.</h1> The SC dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for possessing rectified spirit ... - Issues:1. Conviction under Section 66(b) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for possession of rectified spirit without a permit.2. Use of accused's statement under Section 342, Cr. P. C. in determining possession.3. Evidence of possession of godown by the accused.4. Inference of possession of rectified spirit based on possession of godown.5. Analysis of the recovered articles for the presence of rectified spirit.6. Contention regarding the necessity of a permit for possession of rectified spirit.Analysis:1. The appellant and another individual were charged under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for possessing rectified spirit without a permit. The prosecution alleged that the accused were found in possession of the spirit in a godown. The Magistrate convicted the appellant based on the possession of the godown and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.2. The primary issue raised was the lack of evidence proving the appellant's possession of the rectified spirit. The defense argued against using the accused's statement under Section 342, Cr. P. C. to establish possession. However, witnesses testified that the godown was under the appellant's possession, supported by rent receipts. The Magistrate was justified in considering the accused's statement, which confirmed his charge of the godown.3. Witnesses confirmed the appellant's control over the godown where the spirit was found, and the appellant admitted his responsibility for the premises. The prosecution did not need to provide further evidence due to the appellant's acknowledgment of his role. The Magistrate appropriately considered the accused's statement in relation to the possession of the godown.4. The defense argued that possession of the godown did not imply possession of the spirit, suggesting the police might have planted the articles. However, the evidence disproved this theory, and the Magistrate inferred that the spirit belonged to the appellant based on his control over the premises. The Court upheld this inference, stating that a different conclusion was not sufficient to overturn the lower courts' decisions.5. The defense questioned the analysis of only one bottle out of the recovered articles, claiming uncertainty about the contents of the other bottles and drums. However, sending all items for analysis was unnecessary, and the Court rejected the argument, given the circumstances and evidence presented.6. Lastly, the defense contended that rectified spirit fell under medical preparations, not requiring a permit. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that rectified spirit was classified as an intoxicant under the Act, and its possession without a permit was prohibited. The chemical analysis confirmed the nature of the spirit, aligning with the Act's definition of an intoxicant.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions based on the evidence and legal provisions presented in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
