PARMAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application m revision against a conviction of three persons, Parmai, Durga and Earn Prasad under Section 60(f), U.P. Excise Act. The facts found are as follows: A certain constable obtained information on 10 January 1933, that illicit distillation of liquor was being conducted in the house of the accused. He informed the officer in charge of the Kotwali who proceeded with the Excise Inspector to search the house. The result of the search was that a hearth of bricks, full of ash, with a drum full of wash on it; a pitcher with a hole and a pipe with earth plaster on the hole and ends of the pipe; a pitcher smelling of liquor; a wet pitcher; a pitcher with a hole used as a still head; three canisters full of wash; three bottles, one of which Smelt of liquor and another containing a few drops apparently of liquor were found. These articles were found in two kothries. one of which is alleged to be occupied by Parmai and his son Earn Prasad and the other occupied by Durga. These three persons were present at the search or arrived during the search. The defence was that the articles were found in a house which belonged to Sita Ram, the brother of Parmai and Durga, and that the brothers had separated. The Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have concurred in finding that the incriminating articles were found in the house occupied by the accused. The Court below observes: The appellants are closely related. They have been living together in the house and were present at the time of the raid.

(2.) It also goes on, to say that the appellants were undoubtedly in possession of the house from which the articles were recovered and further that it is proved beyond doubt that the articles were found in the house of the appellants and from their possession. It has been argued that possession of the incriminating articles had not been brought home to any one of the three accused. The finding is that the articles were jointly in their possession and it is argued that this is not enough to justify their conviction under Section 60(f), Excise Act. Section 60(f) is very widely worded. It renders punishable any person who, in contravention of the Act or of any rule made under the Act or of any licence uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any excisable article other than tari.

(3.) It is quite clear that things found were used for the illicit distillation of liquor other than tari and that the illicit distillation was being conducted in the kothries occupied by the three accused persons. The articles found were of such a nature that they obviously could not escape the notice of the occupants. The pitchers, canisters, the drum of wash, etc., were large articles which any one merely entering the kothries would be bound to see. Moreover, the distillation of liquor is accompanied by a characteristic smell which also could not escape notice. It may safely be inferred therefore that any person who occupied the kothries from Which the articles were recovered certainly knew that the articles were there. In our opinion it can also he further safely inferred that all three of, the appellants were in possession of those articles and were using or keeping them. The state in which the articles were found gave a clear indication that distillation had very recently been practised. Considering that Parmai and Durga are brothers and are both adults and that Earn Prasad, the son of Parmai, is also an adult, being about 30 years of age, we think it can safely be inferred that all three of the accused were in possession of the articles and were using or keeping them. On this finding the conviction of each of the applicants is fully justified.