EMPEROR Vs. SVMARATHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the accused has been tried on a charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 45(c) of the Bombay Abkari Act (Bom. Act V of 1878) for violation of the conditions Nos. 5, 9 and 11 of the license. The accused has been found guilty of that charge and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days....

(2.) The next question is whether the accused is shown to have violated conditions 5, 9 and 11 of his license. The 6 condition is that the licensee shall not sell ordinary denatured spirit except in full corked and capsuled quart or pint bottles. The evidence of Mr. Reporter on this point is that he found while searching the shop that the bottles in which the spirit was kept were not quart bottles, but that they were of larger capacity, that nearly two-thirds of the bottles were filled, and that the bottles were sealed, but were not capsuled. The bottles in the shop were proved by him to be not quart or pint bottles and were not capsuled. There is also the admission of the accused in Ex. 2C that the bottles were not capsuled. But the condition No. 5 requires that the licensee shall not sell ordinary denatured spirit except in full corked quart or pint bottles. The accused is found in his shop to have kept for sale ordinary denatured spirit in bottles, which were not full corked quart or pint bottles. The accused, therefore, cannot be said to have violated the condition, because it is not proved that he sold ordinary denatured spirit in the forbidden bottles. We think, therefore, that the accused's conviction for violation of condition 5 is erroneous....

(3.) We think, therefore, that the conviction of the accused for breaking two conditions of the license is correct. We, therefore, confirm the conviction of the accused for violating conditions 9 and 11 of the license. We reduce the sentence of fine to Rs. 20 and order the excess of Rs. 10 if paid to be refunded. Fawcett, J.