Case: Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Goel Vs. State of Bombay

1. The appellant along with one Kishenchand was charged under S. 66 (b) read with S. 81, Bombay Prohibition Act, 25 of 1949, on the allegation that onthe two accused were found in possession of twenty gallons and eight drums of rectified spirit without a permit as required by law. The defence was that these articles were not in their possession or in the godown charge of the appellant. The Presidency Magistrate held that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the bottles, drums and jars containing the rectified spirit were found in the godown raided by the police. He further held that as admittedly the appellant was in charge of the godown, the inference was that he was in control and possession of the articles found therein. In the result he convicted the appellant and sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment and, fine of Rs. 1000. Against the decision of the Presidency Magistrate, an appeal was filed in the High Court but was summarily dismissed. This appeal is before us by special leave.

Reasoning:
It was contended that the Magistrate was not justified in making use of the statement of the accused made under S. 342, Cr. P. C., for the purpose of finding that fact. It was said that the godown was owned by a limited body, Frank Rose & Co., Ltd., and the appellant was paying rent for the godown under their instructions, and that in the absence of evidence that the appellant ever visited the godown or had anything to do with the business carried on therein, it could not be held that the rectified spirit recovered from the godown was in his possession.This contention might have had force if the conviction of the accused was based merely on his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr. P.C., which could not be regarded as evidence, but this is notaccused admitted that he was in charge of the godown, he denied that the rectified spirit was found in that godown. He alleged that the rectified spirit was found outside it. This part of his statement was proved untrue by the prosecution evidence and had no. intimate connection with the statement concerning the possession of thesuggestion that the police placed the articles in the godown cannot bear examination in view of the evidence and in these circumstances the Presidency Magistrate was justified in drawing the inference that these articles were in possession of the appellant who was in possession of the godown, when the defence of the accused that the articles were found outside the godown was negatived. Be that as it may, in our view this Court would not be justified in disturbing the decision of the Courts below on special leave merely on the ground that perhaps a different inference could also have been drawn from the facts found in theargument cannot be seriously considered. It was wholly unnecessary to send all the bottles recovered by the police in the presence of panches and which contained the same stuff for purpose of analysis. This argument is thereforecontention again is without substance. No. evidence has been led that this falls in the category of medical preparations. On the other hand, rectified spirit clearly falls within the definition of an intoxicant and its possession without permit is prohibited by the provisions of S. 66 (b) of the Act. Section 2 (22) of the Act defines an "intoxicant" as including Iiquor.(24) defines liquor as including spirits of wine, methyleted spirit wine, beer, toddy and all liquids consisting of alcohol. From the chemical analysts report it appears that the rectified spirit found in the possession of the appellant was 94 v/v of ethyl alcohol. It therefore clearly fell within the definition of intoxicant, as given in S. (22) of Act. This contention is therefore repelled.