https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302941 The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the consumption of prohibited liquor under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The mere smell of alcohol is insufficient, and the accused need not prove the consumed substance was medicinal. The Court clarified that the declaration in a prior case voided the prohibition on medicinal preparations with alcohol, shifting the burden of proving the liquor's prohibition to the prosecution. Consequently, the appellant's conviction was overturned, emphasizing strict construction of penal statutes and the prosecution's obligation to prove all elements of the offense. en-us Fri, 24 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2022 17:33:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302941 The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the consumption of prohibited liquor under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The mere smell of alcohol is insufficient, and the accused need not prove the consumed substance was medicinal. The Court clarified that the declaration in a prior case voided the prohibition on medicinal preparations with alcohol, shifting the burden of proving the liquor's prohibition to the prosecution. Consequently, the appellant's conviction was overturned, emphasizing strict construction of penal statutes and the prosecution's obligation to prove all elements of the offense. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302941