Case: Ratan Lal Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

1. Ratan Lal - appellant in this appeal - is the proprietor of a business in drugs styled "Anil Medical Stores" at Wani, District Yeotmal in the State of Maharashtra. On September 14, 1960 the Station House Officer, Wani, raided the shop of the appellant and seized 12 bottles of an Ayuredic preparation called Mahadrakshasava manufactured by the Brahma Aushadhalaya, Nagpur and 88 bottles of Dashmoolaristha manufactured by the Vedic Pharmaceutical Works, Nagpur. At a trial held before the Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur, the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under S. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 25 of 1949, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Court of Session, Yeotmal. The High Court of Bombay confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. The appellant appeals to this Court with special leave.2. The following are the material facts found by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, Mahadrakshasava and Dashmoolaristha are Ayurvedic medicinal preparations containing alcohol, manufactured under licences granted under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 16 of 1955. Mahadrakshasava attached from the shop of the appellant contained 52.3% alcohol v/v and Dashmoolaritha contained 54.5% alcohol v/v. These preparations are manufactured by a process of distillation. The appellant had purchased these preparations from a drug store in Nagpur called the Sharda Medical Stores who in their turn were supplied by the manufacturers the Brahma Aushadhalaya, Nagpur and the Vedic Pharmaceutical Works, Nagpur.

Reasoning: Attention must, therefore, be directed to ascertain whether the preparations did correspond with the description and limitations mentioned in S. 59A. If they did not, exemption under S. 24A will be inoperative, even if they are medicinalthe amended S. 6A there is only one mode of proof by the State that an article is fit for use as intoxicating liquor, and that is by obtaining the advice of the Board of Experts and recording its determination, that the article is fit for use as intoxicating liquor. Until it is otherwise determined by the State, after obtaining the report of the Board of Experts, every article mentioned in sub-s. (1) is to be deemed unfit for use as intoxicating liquor. After it is determined as fit for use as intoxicating liquor, in a proceeding relating to the article it would under sub-s. (6) be presumed, that it is fit for use as intoxicating liquor. But the presumption is rebuttable.In the present case the offence is alleged to have been committed in September 1960. After consulting the Board of Experts the Government of Maharashtra issued a declaration on October 4, 1960, declaring that both the preparations Mahadrakshasava and Dashmoolarishta were medicines fit for use as intoxicating liquor. Thereafter a police report was filed in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, on June 2, 1962 charging the appellant with the offence under S. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. But on the date on which the medicinal preparations were attached, the statute had provided that they shall be deemed for the purpose of the Act as articles unfit for use as intoxicating liquor. Possession of the medicinal preparations which were unfit for use as intoxicating liquor was, at the date when they were attached, not an offence. A subsequent declaration by the State that they were fit for use as intoxicating liquor, could not have any retrospective operation, and possession which was innocent could not be subsequent act of the State, be declared as offending the statute.It is unfortunate that the High Court lost sight of the change in the scheme of S. 6A and followed the judgment of this Court in Narandas Mangilals case, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 15 : (AIR 1962 SC 579  ). In Narandas Mangilals case, 1962 SC 579)  . In Narandas Mangilals case, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 15 : (AIR 1962 SC 579  ), at all material times when the question fell to be considered, the Court had to decide whether sub-s. (6) of S. 6A, as it then stood, prescribed the only method of proof whether an offending medicinal preparation was unfit for use as intoxicating liquor, and this Court on the phraseology used by the Legislature came to the conclusion that it was not the only method of proof. But the incorporation of sub-s. (7) by the Legislature has altered the scheme of the(6) incorporated in its second part both before and after the amendment, a rule of evidence but the rule in sub-s. (7), that until a declaration is made to the contrary by the State Government under sub-s. (6) every article mentioned in sub-s. (1) shall be deemed unfit for use as intoxicating liquor, is not a rule of evidence. It defines for the purpose of S. 24A and related sections was an article unfit for use as intoxicating liquor is. It is plain that in Narandas Mangilals case, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 15: (AIR 1962 SC 579  ), the effect of sub-s. (7) of S. 6A did not fall to be considered.