PURUSOTTAM SABRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of considerable general importance, namely: Does the failure of the Magistrate to explain to the accused the particulars of the offence as required by Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiate the trial and the consequent conviction? is one of the questions that has arisen in these revisions for an Answer. The other question is if conviction can be founded on admission of guilt of the accused despite the fact that the production report does not make out an offence under Section 47(f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act')

(2.) In course of a raid by the Striking Force of the Excise staff, certain quantities of fermented Mahua wash, was recovered from the houses of the petitioners. They also recovered some distilling apparatus from the houses of the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 181 and 186 of 1987. They faced the trial for commission of offence under Section 47(f) of the Act. On 28-9-1984, they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kodala, who after recording the statements of the petitioners convicted them under Section 47(1) and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The judgment of the learned Magistrate was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam.

(3.) The two questions, referred to above, have been raised by the counsel for the petitioners. In order to answer the questions raised, it would be worthwhile to state that Section 47(f) prohibits a person from possessing any materials, still, utensils, implement, instrument or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicating drug or liquor other than tari. Section 13 of the Act prohibits possession of the above articles except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that by the Collector. In other words, without a licence from the Collector, no person can possess the above articles for the purpose of manufacturing any liquor other than tari. Here possession of any of the above articles is not enough and to constitute an offence, the person possessing must be shown to have so possessed for the purpose of manufacturing liquor, other than tari.