https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169700 A prohibition statute was upheld because, in pith and substance, it regulated intoxicating liquors within the Provincial List; provisions on presumptions, search, seizure and arrest were only ancillary to enforcement and did not become invalid merely because they incidentally touched evidence and criminal procedure. The rebuttable presumption under section 4(2) was also sustained against Article 14 because it applied uniformly to persons from whom the specified facts were proved and bore a rational connection to the offences under section 4(1). en-us Wed, 28 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2015 11:37:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169700 A prohibition statute was upheld because, in pith and substance, it regulated intoxicating liquors within the Provincial List; provisions on presumptions, search, seizure and arrest were only ancillary to enforcement and did not become invalid merely because they incidentally touched evidence and criminal procedure. The rebuttable presumption under section 4(2) was also sustained against Article 14 because it applied uniformly to persons from whom the specified facts were proved and bore a rational connection to the offences under section 4(1). Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169700