MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated May 21, 1974 by which he upheld the judgment passed by the learned Murisiff and Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road dated November 8, 1973 convicting the accusfd -appellant Under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and sentencing him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -; in default to undergo one and a half month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that despite the fact that Ghhaganlal, one of the Motbirs has specifically deposed that the tiffin carrier in which the alleged illicit liquor is said to be found, at the time of search, belonged to him, the learned Magistrate held the accused -petitioner in conscious possession of the liquor. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific evidence on the point as to which seal was affixed on the sample bottle which was sent for chemical examination, and as such the conviction of the petitioner cannot be said to be justified.

(3.) I have perused the record. So far as Chhagan Lal's version is concerned though he has not been cross -examined by the prosecution, because of his not supporting it, it does not appear to be probable story helping the defence. The Excise Inspector Jawaharlal (P.W. 3), who had taken the search of the house and recovered the illicit liquor and took sample thereof has specifically deposed that he had sealed the bottles then and there and the sample of the seal was sent to the Chemical Examiner also. Chhaganlal and Shiv Singh both Motbirs have admitted that the search of the house was conducted in their presence. Chhagnlal has also not specifically denied the factum of there being something in the tiffin carrier and he in a vague way stated that there was so nothing like water in it. It has also not been stated by Chhagnlal that at the time of search or just before it, he had taken food from tin tiffin carrier. All that he has stated is that he being a relative of Mohanlal used to take food at his shop and so his tiffin carrier used to remain there Under these circumstances, I do not find any thing to interfere in the finding of guilt of the accused arrived at by the learned Magistrate.