MULCHAND THAKURDAS SINDHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6.1.1977 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, whereby he maintained conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road, sentencing the petitioner to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 500.00and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half months.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the excise party headed by the Excise Inspector Shri Gangashanker raided the house of the accused on 23.6.1970 and seize seven tins containing denatured spirit from one room and further seized 13 bottles of denatured spirit. From each of the tins, samples were taken and sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur. The report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner was to the effect that the sample was found containing spirit and light petroleum hydro-carbon. He also gave the percentage of hydro-carbon and spiritual strength in each of the samples. It was also stated by him in the report that the samples were not fit for consumption in their present condition. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 65, 66 (1) (b) and 90 of the Act. After trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Sec. 65 of the Act and convicted on the remaining two counts and awarded the same sentence on both the counts. The petitioner then went in appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in turn acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 90 of the Act, but maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Act, aggrieved against which the present revision has been filed.

(3.) The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the defence of the petitioner was that the liquid recovered was thinner and was not denatured spirit. The thinner is covered under exceptions of Sec. 24-A of the Act. He urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while accepting that the article seized was thinner simultaneously observed that it is nothing else, but a denatured spirit, so its possession is not permissible and is punishable under Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Act. Shri Adwani urged that according to the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner, the Art. seized was not fit for human consumption and, as such, it is covered under clause (3) of Sec. 24-A of the Act as an antiseptic preparation or solution containing alcohol which is unfit for use as intoxicating liquor. In support of his contention Shri Adwani placed reliance on Jhammat Mal Vs. The State of Rajasthan (1977 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 484) .