GHURIA TELIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ghuria Telin is the wife of Rambilas Teli. Both live in a house in village Hariharganj within Palamau District. On the 20th December, 1959, Excise Sub Inspector Sidheshwar Singh (P.W. 1) searched their house and recovered 7 earthen pots containing 4 maunds of fermented mahua, some other materials for distilling liquor, 2 earthen pots containing 2 gallons of illicitly distilled liquor, one bottle containing some more of the same kind of liquor and two baskets containing spent and washed mahua. Both husband and wife were thereupon tried for offences under Sections 47 (a) and 47 (f) of the Excise Act. They were both convicted, and, under Section 47 (a) they were each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-or, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Their convictions and sentences were maintained by the Sessions Judge of Palamau. At the time of admission of the Criminal revision which they filed in this Court, I dismissed the application of Rambilas Teli. I am, therefore, concerned at this stage with the case of Ghuria Telin alone.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Uday Sinha has submitted that a wife is a subordinate member of a family, and that, even if she knows that her husband is keeping in his possession in the house something which makes him guilty of an offence under the Excise Act or my other Act, she has no power or control over such an article. It cannot be said that she is in conscious possession of such an article, and she cannot, therefore, be made liable. On the other hand, Mr. Ramanand Sinha has submitted on behalf of the State that, in her statement before the Excise Sub- Inspector, the petitioner stated that her husband was keeping the articles, which were recovered from her house for the purpose of distilling illicit liquor, and that she was in custody of those articles at that time because her husband was out. On that basis, he says that she was in possession of those articles, and her convictions are correct.

(3.) In my judgment, Mr. Uday Sinba's argument is correct, and must prevail. A wife may be in custody of an article on behalf of her husband in the absence of the husband; but that does not mean that the wife can be held to be in Possession -- much less in conscious possession -- of the article. The wife cannot possibly dictate to the husband what he should keep in his house and what he should not. Even if she is absolutely averse to the keeping of the article, she has no help. I may refer in this connection to a case which has been brought to my notice by Mr. Uday Sinha. That is the case of Lachminiya Thakurain v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Pat 272. The articles recovered in that case were instruments and materials used for counterfeiting coins, and their Lordships set aside the wife's conviction and sentence for being in possession of those articles. The same principle applies to the facts of this case also,