(1.) A-1 is a licencee of a wine shop and A-2 is the Nowkarnama holder of the said shop. P.W. 4 Excise Sub-Inspector along with mediators, P.Ws. 1 to 3, and other Excise officials visited the shop of the accused on 28-8-1989 at 5.30 p.m. At that time, A-2 was found transacting the business. When demanded, he could not produce the bill book. During the verification, they found that there were one 750 ml. bottle and 8 nips of Brandy each measuring 180 ml. without any permit.
(2.) The learned senior Counsel, Mr. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the petitioners submitted that under G.O.Ms.No. 1087, dated 12-11-1969, a person can have in his possession at a time without permit or licence six quarter bottles and that the quantity possessed by A-1 and A-2 is below the limit i.e., 3 bottles only. That being the case, the benefit of this G .O. may be given to the petitioner-accused and no case is made out under Sec. 34-A and 36-C of the Excise Act.
(3.) The lower Court refused to extend the benefit of the said G.O. on the ground that non-duty paid liquor was found in the 'shop' and not with 'a person'. Therefore, the benefit of G.O. cannot be given. This reason is not correct. The word used 'a person' includes 'shop' also. A person in the shop can have in his possession six quart bottles at a time. Certainly, the benfit of this G.O. should be given to the petitioners though non-duty paid liquor was found in the shop.