HARENDRA NATH DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed against him under Section 4 of the Assam Liquor Prohibition Act, 1952 (Assam Act I of 1953), hereinafter referred to as the Act, as amended by the Assam Liquor Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Assam Act No. XI of 1963), hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, is questioned in this revision petition.

(2.) THE prosecution case appears to be that when the accused was seen by the Inspector of Police at Goreswar Outpost, which is within the area where prohibition is in force under the aforesaid Act, he was found exhibiting, according to the prosecution, symptoms similar to those exhibited by a person who had taken liquor. These symptoms consisted of talking irrationally, having reddish eyes and smelling of what smelt like liquor from the mouth. It is not disputed that none of the known scientific methods of investigation had been followed in this case, namely the examination of stomach contents of the accused person or the examination of his blood or urine. The prosecution contented themselves with the superficial examination by P. W. 4, the doctor. Even this witness apparently conceded in his evidence in cross -examination that symptoms similar to those manifested by the accused at the time of the examination could also be found in a person who takes medicines containing alcohol, such as B. G. Phos, The question for consideration in this revision is whether the conviction of the petitioner has been validly and properly and in accordance with law, reached, and whether the conviction can stand. It would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act before the point is examined in detail. Section 3 of the Act lays down as follows:

(3.) THE validity, maintainability or otherwise of the conviction in this case would have to be" judged in the light of the provisions of the Act, the general principles of criminal jurisprudence and the effect of Section 3 -A of the Amending Act thereon. Having regard to the merits of the case, as none of the scientific methods open to the prosecution to follow had been adopted, they lost the opportunity of proving that liquor was present in the stomach contents of the petitioner or it got itself transferred into the urine and blood of the petitioner. These tests are more or less infallible and could be safely relied on as proof of the fact that liquor as such had entered the body of the petitioner. In other words, that the petitioner had consumed liquor, which is an offence under Section 8 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Having regard to the evidence in this case of the doctor who admits that symptoms are consistent with the conclusion that these have been produced by reason of the accused having taken some medicine containing alcohol, the doubt which exists has remained unresolved and under the well -known principles of criminal jurisprudence which has been handed over to us from centuries, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In this context it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. : 1955CriLJ215 , wherein their Lordships observed as follows: