Case: The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Madiga Boosenna &amp; Others

2. According to the prosecution, the respondents were found transporting, in a bullock cart, on the early morning of June 10, 1962, fifty gallons of arrack. It is the case of the prosecution that the prohibition staff found, on the day in question, a bullock cart, driven by the first respondent, in which the fifty gallons of arrack were found in 13 tins. Accordingly they were prosecuted for an offence under S. 4(1) (a) of the Act. All the respondents substantially denied, having committed the offence, with which they were charged3. The prosecution let in the evidence of the Prohibition Sub-Inspector, P. W. 1, and another petty officer of the prohibition staff, P. W. 4. The evidence of these two witnesses, was to the effect that when the bullock cart, in question, came near them, there was a smell of arrack. In particular, P. W. 4 has stated that the tins, which were in the bullock cart, were pierced with bayonet, and when smelt, they gave a strong smell of arrack. To corroborate the evidence of these two officers, the other witnesses. P. Ws. 2 and 5, who were stated to have witnessed this occurrence, along with the prohibition party, were also examined. They stated that when the bullock cart came near them they got a strong smell of arrack, and that the 12 tins were pierced with bayonet ends and their contents verified. Only some of the witnesses have been cross-examined, and the respondents have suggested to them that during that hour of the night, it would not have been possible for them to identify the persons, who were stated to have been in the bullock cart. No doubt, no specific suggestion, that the commodity that was seized, is not one to which the Act applies, has been made. During the trial, however the question appears to have been raised among other contentions, that the prosecution has not established the necessary ingredients for establishing that the respondents have committed the offence, under S. 4 (1) (a) of the Act. The trial Court, adverting to this aspect, has referred to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4, who speak to a strong smell of arrack emanating from the court, and the tins being pierced with bayonet "ids. In view of this evidence, the trial Court is of the opinion that the ground for coming to the conclusion, that it was arrack that was being transported, is established. Ultimately, the trial Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution, found the respondents guilty of the offence under S. 4(1)(a) of the Act, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months4. The respondents challenged their conviction, before the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool. Before the appellate Court also, the respondents pleaded that there is no proper proof, in this case, that the tins contained arrack. A mere statement, by the witnesses, that there was a strong smell of arrack, emanating from the tins when they were pierced with bayonet ends, is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. They have also specifically raised the contention that samples of the commodity should have been sent for the opinion of he Chemical Examiner. This plea, of the respondents, was again brushed aside, by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that the prohibition officer must be considered to have got sufficient experience of smelling and knowing whether a liquid was arrack, or not, and, inasmuch as he has deposed that the liquid was found to be arrack by smell, that statement can be accepted as proof of the nature of the liquid that was being transported, by the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge has also stated that no further testing is called for. The learned Sessions Judge, in the end, confirmed the conviction of the respondents5. The respondents carried the matter further, to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in revision. The High Court has accepted the plea of the respondents that, in this case, there has been no proper proof that the commodity that was found to be transported was arrack. The High Court is of the view that when the accused have denied the offence of carrying any arrack, the prosecution should have got the commodity examined, by a Chemical Examiner, and, inasmuch as that procedure has not been adopted, the High Court ultimately, set aside the conviction of the respondents.

Reasoning:
In this case, according to the prosecution, the respondents had transported liquor. The expression liquor, as mentioned earlier, is defined under S. 3 (9). The prosecution will therefore have to establish that the commodity in question comes under one or other of the various items referred to in the definition of liquor9. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, the High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the prosecution has not established that the respondents are guilty of an offence, under S. 4 (1) (a) of the Act. It is needless to state that, in this case unless the prosecution proves the contravention of the provisions of the Act, in question, it cannot succeed in establishing the guilt of the accused. For that purpose the prosecution will have to establish two things: (i) that the article seized from the accused is liquor. under S. 3 (9) of the Act : and (ii) that the accused transported the same10. Except for a general statement, contained in the evidence of the witnesses, particularly P. Ws. 1 and 4, that there was a strong smell of alcohol, emanating from the tins, which were pierced open, there is no other satisfactory evidence to establish that the article is one coming within the definition of the expression liquor. Merely trusting to the smelling sense of the Prohibition Officers, and basing a conviction, on an opinion expressed by those officers under the circumstances, cannot justify the conviction of the respondents. In our opinion, better proof, by a technical person who has considered the matter from a scientific point of view is not only desirable, but even necessary, to establish that the article seized is one coming within the definition of liquor.In our opinion, the circumstances, pointed out by the learned counsel, will not absolve the prosecution from establishing the ingredients of the offence, for justifying the conviction of the respondents. Even otherwise, it will have to be noted that all of them have, categorically, denied the offence and have also stated, in general terms, that no arrack was seized from themThese observations will clearly show as to why this Court in past case has expressed the view that there is no infirmity in the prosecution case, simply because there has been no chemical analysis made of the commodity, which according to the prosecution, was opium. The facts in the instant case before us, are entirely different. and the observations, extracted above do not apply.