UPENDRA NATH BISWAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Biswas, has been convicted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, of offences under Sections 46 and 48 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 210 under fee latter section; no separate sentence has been passed under the former section. The circumstances antecedent to the prosecution, as established by the evidence, may be briefly narrated.

(2.) On the 12th October 1912, the Deputy Inspector of Excise at Calcutta, upon information received, searched the premises of the accused and found 32 boxes each containing 6 bottles and an isolated bottle of eau-de-Cologne and also 23 long shaped eau-de-Cologne phials all containing a similar liquid. On examination the contents were found to be perfumed denatured spirit The Deputy Inspector also found two boxes of labels similar to those affixed to the phials. The accused was thereupon prosecuted and charged with possessing, without license, 193 bottles and 23 long shaped phials containing perfumed spirit made with denatured spirit, which had been rendered fit for human consumption; he was also charged with having manufactured and sold such spirit from time to time, with attempting to render denatured spirit fit for human consumption, with having in his possession such spirit, and with bottling such spirit for the purpose of sale. The accused repudiated all these charges, and asserted that the liquid contained in the bottles and phials was intended to be used as a furniture-wash, not as liquor to be consumed. The prosecution has resulted in the conviction of the accused as already stated.

(3.) On the present appeal the propriety of the conviction has been assailed on the ground that the elements necessary to constitute an offence under Sections 46 and 48 have not been established on the evidence. We Shall examine separately the arguments in relation to the two sections named, and as the sentence has been passed only on the basis of the conviction under Section 48, we shall first consider the scope and effect of that section in relation to the facts elicited at the trial.