RAGHUNANDANSINGH UDAYSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI T. N. Singh learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present matter, the said liquor has not been examined by the competent authority. He further argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the said liquor was purchased from the applicant, who happens to be a young man coming from a good family. He pointed out that the incident is dated 17-6-1994, and therefore investigation must have been completed.

(2.) SHRI Desai, Dy. Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the said liquor has been examined by Dr. G. C. Bhat, belonging to the Mobile Unit of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. He submitted that two persons died by consumption of the said liquor sold by the applicant. Learned Dy. Government Advocate, Shri Desai pointed out the provision of Section 49a (II) (sic) of Excise Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'excise Act') and submitted that the bail application be dismissed.

(3.) IN the matter of Sheikh Salim v. State of M. P. , 1985 MPLJ 65 = 1985 JLJ 28, this High Court has taken the view that the words embodied in Section 49-B (ii) 'shall be allowed, if opposed by prosecution' has to be construed in proper way.