Licensed premises and acquittal review: absence of proof beyond the licence scope barred interference with acquittal.

The Supreme Court held that, on the evidence, the appellant was not shown to be carrying on business outside the licensed premises because the licence covered the entire building by a single municipal number and there was no proof that the third floor fell outside that description. The mere fact that the showroom was on the ground floor did not establish that accounted gold ornaments could not be stored in another room in the same building. The Court also reaffirmed that where two views are reasonably possible, an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal simply because it prefers a different view. The High Court's reversal of the acquittal was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant carried on business in premises other than the premises specified in the licence and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Analysis: The licence specified the premises by a single municipal number covering the entire building, and there was no prosecution evidence showing that the third floor was outside the licensed premises. On the facts, the mere location of the showroom on the ground floor did not establish that accounted gold ornaments could not be stored in another room in the same building. The trial court's view was a reasonable one, and where two views are reasonably possible, an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal merely because a different conclusion is possible.

Conclusion: The finding that the appellant was carrying on business in unlicensed premises was not sustainable, and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquittal.

---