Case ID: 215

Judgment:
iminal Appeal No. 42 of 1953. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 5th February	 1953	 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 1952 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd April	 1952	 of the Court of the Presidency Magistrate 19th Court	 Bombay	 in Case No. 933/P of 1951. B. M. Mistry	 J. B. Dadachanji	 Rajinder Narain and R. D. Chadda for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad	 Attorney General for India (R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale	 with him) for the respondent. February 19	 April 28	 September 23	 and September 24. [The present Criminal Appeal (No. 42 of 1953) came up for hearing in the first instance before a Bench of Hon 'ble Judges composed of Bhagwati	 Jagannadhadas and Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. who delivered the following Judgments dated 19th February	 1954]. BHAGWATI J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversing the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant by the Court of the Presidency Court	 Bombay	 and convicting him of an offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 and sentencing him to one month 's ' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The appellant	 who was the Officiating Regional Transport Officer	 Bombay Region	 was on the 29th May	 195 1	 at about 9.30 P.m.	 proceeding in his jeep car towards the Colaba Bus Stand when he knocked down three persons	 Mrs. Savitribai Motwani	 her husband and Miss Parvatibai Abhichandani. The police arrested the appellant and took him to the police station. From the police station he was taken to St. George 's Hospital in order to be examined by the doctor for alleged consumption of liquor. The doctor found his breath smelling of alcohol. He however found the conjunctiva were congested	 the pupils were semi dilated and reacting to light. The speech was coherent and he could behave himself and walk along a straight line. The doctor was therefore of opinion that he did not seem to be under the influence of alcohol though he had taken alcohol in some form or the other. The appellant was put up before the Presidency Magistrate for his trial under two offences	 one under section 338 of the Indian Penal Code on three counts for causing grievous hurt to the three injured persons by doing a rash and negligent act	 i.e.	 driving his motor car in a rash and negligent manner	 and the other under section 66 (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The appellant cross examined the doctor and suggested that he had taken a medicinal preparation	 B. G. Phos	 and also stated in answer to the Magistrate on the 20th December	 1951	 that he had not consumed any liquor but had taken medicinal preparation containing a small percentage of alcohol. He also filed a written statement on the 13th March	 1952	 setting out in detail the whole history of his case. He stated there that owing to his ill health he had been recommended to take tonics	 specially those containing vitamin B Complex and Phosphates and had regularly taken tonics	 such as Wampole 's Phospho Lecitin	 B. G. Phos	 and Huxley 's Nerve Vigour. He further stated that on the night in question he had at about 9 or 9.15 P.m. after dinner 616 taken a dose of B. G. Phos and was proceeding in his jeep car for a drive via Cuffee Parade and Marine Drive when the accident took place. He produced his driving licence and registration certificate and a copy of the agenda of the Regional Transport Authority 's meeting to be held next day and a carton of B. G. Phos on which it was stated that it contained 17 per cent alcohol according to its formula. The learned Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant of both these offences. In regard to the offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act he observed that the evidence did not go to show conclusively that the appellant had consumed alcohol without a permit	 that there were certain medicinal preparations which were allowed to be used by law and there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the appellant had not consumed those tonics but only liquor for which he ought to have a permit. The respondent	 the State of Bombay	 took two appeals before the High Court against each of these two cases. The High Court confirmed the acquittal in regard to the charge under section 338 of the Indian Penal Code but reversed the order acquitting him of the charge under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The High Court followed a decision of its own Division Bench in Rangarao Bala Mane vs State(1) where it had been held that "Once it is proved by the prosecution that a person has drunk or consumed liquor without a permit	 it is for that person to show that the liquor drunk by him was not prohibited liquor	 but was alcohol or liquor which he is permitted by law to take	 e.g.	 medicated alcohol. The prosecution is not to discharge the burden of the accused	 and if in answer to a charge of drinking liquor without a permit the accused suggests that the liquor which was drunk by him was not liquor in a prohibited form or was alcohol in a medicated form	 he must show it. " The High Court observed that the Magistrate had misdirected himself on a point of law and it was therefore open to it to examine the evidence and come to its own conclusion whether the appellant had shown that he had (1) 617 taken B. G. Phos that night after dinner and that the alcoholic smell which was still found in his mouth as late as 11.30 P.m. when he was examined by the doctor" ' was the smell of the alcoholic con tents of B. G. Phos. It came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove the existence of circumstances from which the Court could come to the conclusion that the liquor which was consumed by the appellant was not prohibited liquor but liquor which was excepted by the Bombay Prohibition Act from its operation and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate in his favour convicting him of the offence and sentencing him as above. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before us that the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 was impugned after the advent of the Constitution and this Court by its decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F.N.Balsara(1) inter alia declared the provisions of clause (b) of section 13 to be invalid so far as it affects the consumption or use of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol	 that the effect of that declaration was to lift the consumption or use of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol from the prohibition enacted in section 13(b) and that section 66(b) was inoperative and unenforceable so far as such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol were Concerned. It was therefore incumbent on the prosecution	 if a charge under section 66(b) was framed against an accused	 to prove that the accused had consumed or used an intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of the Act	 which provision so far as section 13(b) was concerned was to be read as prohibiting the consumption or use of liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol	 which were the only categories of validly prohibited liquor. On this interpretation of the effect of the judgment in The State of Bombay and Another vs P. N. Balsara (supra) there was no question whatever of the applicability of section 105 or of section 106 of the (1) ; 618 Evidence Act as was sought to be done by the High Court. It was further ' urged that even if an onus was cast on the accused to prove that he had consumed a liquid medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol that onus was lighter in burden than the onus on the prosecution and the moment the accused indicated his defence the onus again shifted on the prosecution to negative such defence. It was urged on the other hand on behalf of the respondent that the effect of the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) was to graft an exception or a proviso to section 13(b) and that the onus and the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing his case within the exception or proviso lay on the accused and the Court was to presume the absence of such circumstances. (Vide section 105 of the Evidence Act). It was further urged that the prosecution could not possibly prove that no form of liquid medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol was taken by the accused	 that the fact of the consumption of such medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol was especially within the knowledge of the accused and that therefore the burden of proving such fact was upon him	 and that once the prosecution had discharged the onus which lay upon it to prove that the accused had consumed liquor it would be for the accused to show that the liquor which was taken by him was a liquid medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol. (Vide section 106 of the Evidence Act). The relevant provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 may be here set out. The Act was passed inter alia to amend and consolidate the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of and carrying into effect the policy of prohibition in the Province of Bombay. Section 2(22) defined 'an "intoxicant" to mean any liquor. . . . Section 2(24) defined "liquor" to include (a) spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol. Chapter III enacted the prohibitions and section 13(b) provided: No person shall. . . . (b) consume or use 619 liquor Section 66(b) is the penal section and provided: "Whoever in contravention of the provisions of this Act	 or of any rule	 regulation or order made	 or of any licence	 permit	 pass or authorisation issued	 thereunder (b) consumes	 uses	 possesses or transports any intoxicant or hemp shall	 on conviction	 be punished. " It may be noted that the Act as it stood before the amendment by Bombay Act XXVI of 1952 which came into operation on the 22nd October	 1952	 enacted in section 103 the only presumption as to the commission of offences in certain cases which cases had nothing to do with the question before us. This Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) held that the definition of liquor contained in section 2(24) was not ultra vires inasmuch as the word liquor as understood in India at the time of the Government of India Act	 1935	 covered not only those alcoholic liquids which are generally used as beverages and produce intoxication but also all liquids containing alcohol. It however considered the restrictions imposed by sections 12 and 13 of	 the Act on the possession	 sale	 use and consumption of liquor not reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19(1) (b) of the Constitution to "acquire	 hold and dispose of property" so far as medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol were concerned and declared the said sections invalid so far as they prohibited the possession	 sale	 use and consumption of these articles. The sections were however not wholly declared void on this ground as the earlier categories mentioned in the definition of liquor	 viz.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer and toddy	 were distinctly separable items which were easily severable from the last category	 viz.	 all liquids containing alcohol	 and the restrictions on the possession	 sale	 use and consumption of these earlier categories were not unreasonable restrictions. It therefore declared section 13(b) invalid to the extent of the inconsistency	 i.e.	 so far as it affected the 620 consumption or use of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. The question that falls to be determined is what was the effect of this declaration The effect of the declaration of a statute as un constitutional has been thus set out by Cooley on Constitutional Limitations	 Vol. I	 page 382. "Where a Statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional	 it is as if it had never been. Rights cannot be built up under it; contracts which depend upon it for their consideration are void; it constitutes a protection to no one who has acted under it and no one can be punished for having refused obedience to it before the decision was made. And what is true of an Act void in toto is true also as to any part of an Act which is found to be unconstitutional and which consequently has to be regarded as having never at any time been Possessed of any legal force. . See also the dictum of Field J. in Norton vs Shelby County(1): "An unconstitutional Act is not law	 it confers no rights	 it imposes no duties	 it affords no protection	 it creates no office; it is	 in legal contemplation	 as inoperative as though it had never been passed. " To the same effect are the passages from Rottschaefer on Constitutional Law	 at page 34: "The legal status of a legislative provision in so far as its application involves violation of constitutional provisions	 must however be determined in the light of the theory on which Courts ignore it as law in the decision of cases in which its application produces unconstitutional results. That theory implies that the legislative provision never had legal force as applied to cases within that class. " Willoughby on Constitution of the United States	 Second Edition	 Vol. 1	 page 10: "The Court does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to recognise it	 and determines the rights of the (1) ; 	 621 parties just as if such statute had no application. The Court may give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the statute	 but the decision affects the parties only	 and there is no judgment against the statute. The opinion or reasons of the Court may operate as a precedent for the determination of other similar cases	 but it does not strike the statute from the statute book; it does not repeal the statute. The parties to that suit are concluded by the judgment	 but no one else is bound. A new litigant may bring a new suit	 based on the very same statute	 and the former decision can be relied on only as a precedent " "It simply refuses to recognise it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no application " And Willis on Constitutional Law	 at page 89 " A judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute neither annuls nor repeals the statute but has the effect of ignoring or disregarding it so far as the determination of the rights of private parties is concerned. The courts generally say that the effect of an unconstitutional statute is nothing. It is as though it had never been passed The declaration was a judicial pronouncement and. even though under article 141 of the Constitution the law declared by this Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India and is to be the law of the land the effect of that declaration was not to enact a statutory provision or to alter or amend section 13(b) of the Act. No exception or proviso was also grafted in terms on section 13(b). The only effect of the declaration was that the prohibition enacted in section 13(b) was to be enforceable in regard to the consumption or use of validly prohibited liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol. The prohibition which was enacted in section 13(b) against the consumption or use of liquor could in the light of the declaration made by this Court only refer to the consumption or use of validly prohibited liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 today and all non medicinal and 80 622 non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol	 and that was the only prohibition which could be enforced under section 13(b) and the penal section 66(b). The consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations. containing alcohol could not be validly prohibited and any person consuming or using such medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol could not be hauled up for having contravened the provisions of the Act. No offence could be committed by the consumption of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol and the provision enacted in section 13(b) read in the light of the definitions of intoxicant and liquor contained in sections 2 (22) and 2(24) of the Act in so far as it prohibited the consumption or use of liquor including liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol was rendered inoperative and unenforceable by the declaration to the extent of the inconsistency and liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol were lifted out of the category of validly prohibited liquor. Whatever may be the implications or the consequences of the unconstitutionality of section 13(b) to the extent of the inconsistency in other respects	 here was the State enforcing the penal provisions of section 66(b) and encroaching upon the liberties of the subject. Penal statutes should be strictly construed and the	 State could only penals the consumption or use of validly prohibited liquor which only could constitute an offence under section 66(b). The consumption or use of any intoxicant meaning any liquor in contravention of the provisions of this Act was to be punished and unless and until the prosecution proved that the accused had consumed or used liquor in contravention of the enforceable provi sions of the Act the accused could not be held guilty and punished under section 66(b). The accused could be held guilty only if he had contravened the enforceable provisions of the Act and for the purpose of the present enquiry the only provision of the Act which he could be charged with having contravened was section 13(b)	 the prohibition contained in which was by reason of the declaration made by this Court enforceable only in regard to the consumption or use of Validly prohibited liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine. 	 methylated spirits	 623 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol. It was strenuously urged before us on behalf of the respondent that the declaration in effect	 though not in terms	 enacted an exception or proviso to section 13(b) and that therefore the onus lay upon the appellant to prove the existence of circumstances bringing his case within the exception or proviso. (Vide section 105 of the Evidence Act.) It cannot be disputed that no exception or proviso was in terms enacted by this declaration. It had the effect of rendering the prohibition of consumption or use of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol as having never at any time been possessed of any legal force and so not to be enforceable wherever any accused person was charged with having contravened the provisions of section 13(b) of the Act. The effect of the declaration on the provisions of section 13(b) could be worked out in any of the following modes: No person shall consume or use spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol as are not or which are not or other than or save or except or provided they are not or but shall not include liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol or all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol. When these several interpretations were possible in regard to the effect of the declaration on the provisions of section 13(b)	 where would be the justification for interpreting the effect of the declaration to be that of grafting an exception o r proviso on section 13(b) so as to attract the operation of the provisions of section 105 of the Evidence Act? It is clear that where several interpretations are possible	 the Court should adopt an interpretation favourable to the accused	 rather than one which casts an extra or special burden upon him	 which if at all should be done by clear and unequivocal provision in that behalf rather than in this indirect manner. (See also In re Kanakasabai Pillai(1) ). It would be more in consonance with the principles of (1) A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 1. 624 criminal jurisprudence to interpret the effect of this declaration to be that the prohibition enacted in section 13(b) where it came to be enforced against any accused person after the declaration should be enforceable as regards the consumption or use of validly prohibited liquor	 ?I.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol	 as above stated. If this is the effect of the declaration made by this Court there is no room for holding that the only duty of the prosecution was to prove that the accused had taken liquor in some form or the other and that the burden lay on the accused to prove that be had taken a liquid medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol. When an accused person is charged with having committed an offence it is for the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence with which he has been charged and the ingredients of the offence under section 13(b) as stated above were that he had consumed or used liquor validly prohibited	 i.e. spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol. There was no presumption enacted in the Act as it stood which would throw the burden of proof on the accused to show that he had consumed or used liquid medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol. There was no exception or proviso enacted either in terms or in effect in section 13(b) which attracted the operation of section 105 of the Evidence Act and cast upon the accused the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing his case within such exception or proviso. The mere circumstance that the fact in regard to his consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol was specially within the knowledge of the accused also could not shift the burden of proving the ingredients of the offence from the prosecution to the accused	 because it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence as administered in this country that it is for the prosecution and prosecution alone to prove all the ingredients of the offence with which the 625 accused has been charged. The accused is not bound to open his lips or to enter upon his defence unless and until the prosecution has discharged the burden which lies upon it and satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused. Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be construed to mean that the accused has by reason of the circumstance that the facts are especially within his own knowledge to prove that he has not committed the offence. (See Attygalle vs The King(1)	 also In re Kanakasabai Pillai(2)). It is for the prosecution to prove that he has committed the offence and that burden is not in any manner whatsoever displaced by section 106 of the Evidence Act. The High Court in arriving at its decision in Rangarao Bala Mane vs State (supra) above referred to was impressed with the circumstance that the prosecution could not possibly prove that no form of medicated alcohol was taken by the accused	 that there were evidently numerous forms of medicated alcohol and that it was impossible for the prosecution on the very face of things to exclude all those forms. The difficulty was illustrated by the High Court in the manner following: "For instance	 if the prosecution were to lead evidence to show that the accused had not taken medicated alcohol in the form of B. G. Phos	 the accused would contend that he had taken it in some other form. If the prosecution were to lead evidence that the accused had not taken it in the form of Winedex	 the accused would say that he had taken it in the form of Waterbury 's Compound or Hall 's Wine. These are only two instances to show how	 it is impossible for the prosecution to exclude all forms of medicated alcohol. " It therefore came to the conclusion that once the prosecution had discharged the onus which was upon it to prove that the accused person had consumed liquor	 it would be for the accused to show that the liquor which was taken by him was liquor in the form of medicated alcohol	 in other words	 not prohibited liquor. The difficulty thus envisaged by the High Court was	 in my opinion	 imaginary. Where an accused (1) A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 169. (2) A.I.R. 1940 Madras 1. 626 person is suspected of having committed the prohibition offence	 it would be for the police to investigate the offence and while investigating the offence	 it would be for the police to find out whether the accused has consumed liquor which falls within 'the enforceable prohibition enacted in section 13(b). As there are a number of preparations which come within the category of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations consisting of or containing alcohol	 there are a number of preparations which come within the category of non medicinal or non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol and it would be really for the police investigating the alleged offence to find out which out of the latter category of preparations the accused had consumed and bring him to book for the same. The circumstance that the accused person was smelling of alcohol and that he had consumed liquor in some form or the other would not be an unequivocal circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused. The smell of alcohol could as well be the result of his having consumed medicinal or toilet preparations consisting of or containing alcohol as his having consumed validly prohibited liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol. To hold the accused guilty under these circumstances would be to convict him merely because he was smelling of alcohol and depriving him of the benefit of doubt which an accused person is always entitled to in the event of the facts and circumstances being consistent either with his guilt or his innocence. To adopt the reasoning which appealed to the High Court would further be tantamount to laying down that once an accused person was shown to have consumed liquor in some form or the other the presumption was that he had consumed validly prohibited liquor and the onus would be upon him to rebut that presumption by showing that lie had consumed medicinal or toilet preparation containing alcohol. The difficulty in the way of the prosecution proving its case need not deflect the Court from arriving at a correct conclusion. If these difficulties are genuinely 627 felt it would be for the Legislature to step in and amend the law. It would not be the function of the Court to read something in the provisions of the law ' which is not there or to find out a way of obviating the difficulties in enforcing the law howsoever meritorious the intentions of the Legislature might be. If these difficulties were felt in the matter of enforcing the policy of prohibition by the State of Bombay the only remedy was to effect the necessary amendments when the Bombay Act XXVI of 1952 was enacted on the 22nd October	 1952	 after this Court made the declara tion in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). In my opinion it was not enough for the prosecution in the present case merely to prove that the appellant had taken alcohol in some form or the other. The prosecution ought to have proved that the appellant had in contravention of the provisions of the Act med an intoxicant meaning any liquor which consumer regard to the declaration made by this Court having could only be validly prohibited liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations con sisting of or containing alcohol. The evidence of the doctor only went to show that the appellant had consumed alcohol in some form or the other. That was not enough and I have therefore come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had committed the offence with which he was charged. In view of the conclusion reached above it is un necessary to go into the interesting question which was canvassed before us at some length as to the burden of proof on the prosecution as well as the defence in a criminal trial having regard to the provisions of section 105 of the Evidence Act as also the applicability in India of the principles enunciated in Woolmington vs The Director of Public Prosecutions(1). I would therefore allow the appeal	 and quash the conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant by the High Court. (1) ; 	 628 JAGANNADHADAS J. I have had the benefit of the judgments of both my learned brothers. perusing But	 with great regret	 I feel unable to agree with the view taken by my learned brother Justice Bhagwati. Two questions of law have been raised in this case	 viz.	 (1) on whom does the burden of proof lie to make out that the "liquor" consumed by the appellant was or was not medicinal or toilet preparations though contain ing alcohol	 and (2) what is the nature and quantum of proof required if the burden is upon the appellant. The answer to question No. 1 depends upon the effect of the decision of this Court in The State	 of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) which	 while holding that the definition of liquor in sub section (24) of section 2 of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949 (Act XXV of 1949) is valid	 has declared that clause (b) of section 13 in so far as it affects the consumption or use of medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 is invalid. My learned brother Justice Bhagwati	 while holding that the effect of the declaration was not to alter and amend section 13(b) of the Act	 is of the opinion that in the light thereof the prohibition under section 13(b) is to be understood to relate (so far as is relevant for the present purpose) to consumption or use of "non medicinal or non toilet liquid preparation containing alcohol" and that	 therefore	 the burden lies on the prosecution to make out all the ingredients of the prohibition so understood with the negative thereof On the other hand	 my learned brother Justice Venkatarama Ayyar is of the opinion that the effect of the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (Supra) is not to amend or alter section 13(b) but only to render it partly unenforceable	 and hence to provide a defence to the accused	 on the ground of unconstitutionality in so far as that section is sought to be applied to medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol and that	 therefore	 the burden of making out the facts required for this plea is on the accused. I agree that no legislative function can be attributed to a judicial decision and that the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) does not	 629 proprio vigore amend the Act. The effect of a judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute has been stated at page 10 of Vol. I of Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States	 Second Edition	 as follows: "The Court does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it	 and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no application. The Court may give its reasons for ignoring or disregarding the statute	 but the decision affects the parties only	 and there is no judgment against the statute. The opinion or reasons for the court may operate as a precedent for the determination of other similar cases	 but it does not strike the statute from the statute book; it does not repeal. . . the statute. The parties to that suit are concluded by the judgment	 but no one else is bound. A new litigant may bring a new suit	 based on the very same statute	 and the former decision. . can be relied on only as a precedent. " This and other similar passages from other treatises relate	 however	 to cases where the entire legislation is unconstitutional from the very commencement of the Act	 a situation which falls within the scope of article 13(2) of our Constitution. They do not directly cover a situation which falls within article 13(1). In the present case	 though the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (Supra) does not by itself bring about a change in the Act	 the declarations made therein are founded on article 13(1) and it is with the effect thereof we are concerned. The question is what is the effect of article 13(1) on a pre existing valid statute	 which in respect of a severable part there. of violates fundamental rights. Under article 13(1) such part is "void" from the date of the commencement of the Constitution	 while the other part continues to be valid. Two views of the result brought about by this voidness are possible	 viz.	 (1) the said severable part becomes unenforceable	 while it remains part of the Act	 or (2) the said part goes out of the Act and the Act stands appropriately amended pro tanto. The first is the view which appears to have been adopted 81 630 by my learned brother	 Justice Venkatarama Ayyar	 an the basis of certain American decisions. I feel inclined to agree with it. This aspect	 however	 was not fully presented by either side and was only suggested from the Bench in the course of arguments. We have not had the benefit of all the relevant material being placed before us by the learned advocates on either side. The second view was the basis of the arguments before us. It is	 therefore	 necessary and desirable to deal with this case on that assumption. The question	 then	 for consideration is what is the notional amendment which must be imported into the Act consistently with the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). The relevant portions thereof are as follows: (1) The definition of "liquor" in the Act to its full extent continues to be valid	 (2) section 13(b) of the Act in so far as it relates to liquid toilet or medicinal preparations containing alcohol is invalid	 and (3) this portion of the content of section 13(b) is severable. The argument of the appellant 's learned counsel is that the essence of the valid prohibition under section 13(b) now is the consumption or use of liquor other than liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol. Ha urges	 therefore	 that section 13(b) must be taken to stand amended accordingly. The argument	 if I understood it a right	 was that the word "liquor" stands amended as "prohibited liquor" or that it must be understood with this limited connotation. I am unable to see how this can be done. The definition of the word "liquor" with its inclusive content remaining intact and valid	 that content has to be imported wholesale into the meaning of the word "liquor" in section 13(b) and it appears to me that it is not permissible to read it or understand it in a different sense. So to read it or understand it would be to import a new definition of "prohibited liquor" into the Act and to make the consumption or use of "prohibited liquor"	 the offence. What	 however	 the Balsara decision has done is not to authorise the importation of a new definition and the rewriting of section 13(b). It keeps section 13(b) intact 631 but treats the consumption or use of liquid toilet or medicinal preparations containing alcohol as severable and takes such consumption or use out of the ambit of the section itself as the prohibition thereof is un constitutional. This can be done and only done	 in my opinion	 by grafting an appropriate exception or proviso into section 13(b). My learned brother	 Justice Bhagwati	 has in his	 judgment suggested that	 if it is a question of treating section 13(b) as amended	. the amendment can be made in one of many modes and that there is no reason to choose between them and that it is not fair to an accused person to read it in a manner throwing the burden on him	 when a more favourable mode is open. The various modes of amendment are indicated in the following suggested reading of section 13(b). "No person shall consume or use spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all liquids consisting of or containing 'A ' alcohol as are not or which are not or other than or save or except or provided they are not or but shall include liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 or all non medicinal and non toilet liquid 'B ' preparations consisting of or containing alcohol." (The underlinings and markings are mine). Now	 if the relevant portion of the section is recast in the manner above indicated	 in any of the alternative modes in the portion marked 'A ' above	 I have no doubt that every one of these modes is only an exception or a proviso which falls within the specific terms of section 105 of the Evidence Act	 i.e.	 an exception or proviso "in the law defining the offence. " If	 on the other hand	 the section is treated as amended by incorporating the portion marked 'B ' omitting the portion marked 'A '	 it appears to me	 with great respect	 that it is to alter the very content of the word ' "liquor" in the section	 for which I can find no legal justification. What the decision in The State of Bombay 632 and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) authorises is	 as I have already explained above	 to keep the word "liquor" intact with its full content and sever from the provision taken as alcohol (not merely from the word "liquor") medicinal or toilet preparations. I feel accordingly confirmed in the view that I have taken	 viz.	 that this can only be done by engrafting an exception or a proviso. As regards the other view suggested by my learned brother Justice Bhagwati	 that without importing any alteration or amendment in the section itself	 the same is to be understood as having reference to what maybe called "prohibited liquor"	 understanding that word with reference to the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 here again	 with great respect	 I feel difficulty in imputing into a specific statutory provision a meaning different from what its plain words	 in the light of the definition	 indicate. The decision in The State Of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 if it does not bring about an amendment in the provision does not also provide any mere aid to interpretation. The question is not done of insisting on a merely technical view of the matter. I feel unable to impute to the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 taken with article 13(1)	 the effect of rendering section 13(b) unworkable	 which certainly was not intended. In this view	 therefore	 (and on the basis put forward by learned counsel on both sides)	 the effect of article 13(1) on section 13(b) of the Act in the light of the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) is that it stands amended pro tanto by means of an appropriate exception or proviso. It follows that section 105 of the Evidence Act would in terms apply to such a situation. Thus in either view of the effect ' of article 13(1) of the Constitution on section 13(b) of the Bombay Act in the light of the judgment in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) the opinion expressed by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court that the burden of proof in a case like this lies on the accused is correct. 633 As regards the second question that has been raised namely as to the nature and quantum of the evidence required to discharge this burden of proof	 considerable arguments have been advanced before us. Our attention has been drawn to the existence of conflicting decisions in the High Courts on this topic. On the one side there is the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Prabhoo vs Emperor(1) and on the other	 there is a later Special Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Government of Bombay vs Sakur(2). In my opinion it is unnecessary for us to resolve that conflict in this case	 since	 on either view	 the finding of the appellate Court that the burden has not been discharged on the available material seems to me to be correct. In particular it is to be noticed that the appellant put forward a specific defence in Paragraph 8 of the written statement filed by him into Court in answer to the charge. In support of this defence he has given no proof of any circumstances	 which must be within his knowledge	 to render the defence reasonably probable even if be may not have been able to prove the same strictly to the hilt. I am	 therefore	 of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 is correct. But in the circumstances	 it is not necessary to send him back to jail. I would	 therefore	 reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. In the result	 the appeal has to be dismissed subject to this modification. VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. I regret that I am unable to agree with the view taken by my learned brother	 Bhagwati J. The facts giving rise to this appeal have been stated in his Judgment which I have had the advantage of reading and it is unnecessary to restate them. The point for decision shortly is whether in a prosecution under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 XXV of 1949	 for contravention of section 13(b)	 the prosecution has to establish not merely that liquor had been taken in some form but that further what was taken was not a medicinal preparation. The (1) I.L.R. 1941 All. (2) 48 Bom. L. R. 746; A.I.R. 1947 Bom. 634 learned Judges of the Bombay High Court held following an earlier decision of that Court in Rangrao Bala Mane vs State (supra) that once the prosecution had established that the accused had taken alcohol in some form it was for him to establish that he had taken a medicinal preparation	 both on the ground that it was in the nature of an exception which it was for the party pleading it to establish under section 105 of the Evidence Act and that it was a matter specially within his knowledge and that therefore the burden of proving it lay on him under section 106 of the Evidence ' Act. The appellant challenges the correctness of this deci sion and contends that it is opposed to the decision of this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). It will be convenient first to refer to the statutory provisions bearing on the question and ascertain what the position is thereunder	 and then consider how it is affected by the decision of this Court in The State Of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). The relevant provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act are sections 2(24)	 13(b) and 66(b). Section 2(24) defines "liquor" as including all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol. Section 13(b) enacts that no person shall use or consume liquor and a contravention of this provision is made punishable under section 66(b). As medicinal preparations containing alcohol are liquor as defined in section 2(24) the consumption thereof will be an offence punishable under the Act and it will be no answer to a prosecution for contravention of section 13(b) that what was consumed was a medicinal preparation and a question of the kind now presented to us therefore could not possibly arise under the Act prior to the Constitution. I may next consider the effect of the decision of this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) on the legal position under the Act. It was there held inter alia that section 13(b) in so far as it prohibited the consumption of medicinal preparations was an unreasonable restriction on the rights of an owner to hold and enjoy property and was therefore void as being repugnant to article 19 (1) (f) of the 635 Constitution. The appellant contends that the effect of this declaration was to remove medicinal preparations from out of the purview of section 13(b); that ' that section should therefore be read as if it had been amended to the effect that no person shall use or consume liquor other than medicinal preparations or toilets; that in that view no question of the accused having to rely on an exception arose and no question of the burden being thrown on him under section 105; and that as the offence itself consisted in consuming a liquor which was not a medicinal preparation	 the burden would lie on the prosecution to establish that what was consumed was a prohibited liquor. On the other hand	 the respondent contends that the definition of liquor in section 2(24) includes not only beverages but also medicinal preparations	 that the extended definition would apply to section 13(b) as well	 that the immunity of medicinal preparations containing alcohol from the operation of the section by reason of the decision in The	 State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) must in consequence be treated as an exception to it and that the 'section should be read as containing a saving in favour of those preparations	 in the nature of an exception or proviso	 the burden of establishing which under section 105 of the Evidence Act would be on the accused. I agree with the appellant that section 105 has no application. We are not here concerned with any exception	 general or special	 under the Penal Code or any other law defining the offence. The exception or proviso	 if it may be so called	 arises as a result of the decision of this Court and not under any statute and section 105 cannot therefore in terms apply. At the same time it is difficult to see how the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (Supra) can be considered to effect an amendment of section 13(b) so as to exclude medicinal preparations from out of its ambit. The rival contentions which have been presented to us on the effect of the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) proceed both of them on the basis that ' section 13(b) has in some manner been amended by it; according to the appellant	 the 636 section must be taken to have been amended by excluding medicinal preparations from the word " liquor" according to the respondent	 by inserting an exception or proviso to the section in favour of such preparations. That	 however	 is not the correct position. Decisions of Court do not amend or add to a statute. That is a purely legislative function. They merely interpret the law and declare whether it is valid or not and the result of a declaration that it is not valid is that no effect could be given to it in a Court of law. If therefore section 13(b) cannot be construed as itself amended or modified by reason of the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 there is no reason to hold that medicinal preparations containing alcohol	 which fell within its scope before	 have gone out of it after that decision. This argument therefore does not furnish any ground for throwing the burden on the prosecution under section 13( b) to establish not merely that what was consumed was liquor but that it was not a medicinal preparation. The question of burden of proof must therefore be decided not on the basis of a suppositions amendment of the section or addition of an exception or proviso to it but on the language of the section as it stands and with reference to Well established principles of law. Under that section it is an offence to use or consume liquor and that under the definition in section 2(24) includes medicinal preparations containing alcohol. One of the points raised in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) was that the State Legislature which was competent to legislate on into xicating liquor could not under that head of legislation enact a law in respect of medicinal preparations containing alcohol because the words "intoxicating liquor" meant beverages and not medicines but this contention was negatived by this Court on the ground that the words "intoxicating liquor" had acquired an extended sense as including medicinal preparations containing alcohol and that the Legislature was competent while enacting a law with reference to intoxicating liquors to legislate on medicinal preparations 637 containing alcohol. The definition of "liquor" in section 2(24) in its extended sense having thus been held to be valid	 it follows that unless there is something in the particular provision to the contrary	 the word "liquor" must wherever it occurs in the statute include medicinal preparations and that is the meaning which it must bear in section 13(b). In The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 it is on the footing that medicinal preparations are included in section 13 that the entire discussion on its validity with reference to article 19(1) (f) proceeds. We therefore start with this that under section 13(b)	 the Legislature has made it an offence to take alcohol in any form	 whether as beverages or as medicinal preparations. That being the position and it having been decided that the section in so far as it relates to medicinal preparations is void as repugnant to article 19(1) (f)	 the question as to who should prove whether what was consumed was alcohol or medicinal preparation containing alcohol appears to me to admit of a simple answer. There is a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and it is for those who assail it as unconstitutional to establish it. The contention of the appellant is	 when analyzed	 that section 13(b) is bad in so far as it hits medicinal preparations containing alcohol as it contravenes article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution	 and the decision of this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) is relied on as supporting it. But before the appellant can bring himself within that decision	 he must establish that what he consumed was a medicinal preparation. The plea of unconstitutionality is not established unless all the elements necessary to sustain such a plea are established ; and as observed by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs The State of Vindhya Pradesh(1)	 "the burden of making out facts requisite for the constitutional invalidity of the convictions" is on the appellant. He has therefore to make out as a fact that what he consumed was a medicinal preparation and as a matter of law	 that section 13(b) is bad in so far as it prohibits it. The decision of this Court concludes the (1) ; 	1202. 82 638 question in his favour so 'far as the second point is concerned. But the burden of establishing the first point	 that in fact what he consumed was a medicinal preparation	 still remains on him. It was argued for the appellant that this Court had declared that section 13(b) was void under article 13(1) of the Constitution in so far as it related to medicinal preparations; that that meant that it was to that extent a nullity and that it should in consequence be read as if it did not include medicinal preparations. The question is	 what is the legal effect of a statute being declared unconstitutional. The answer to it depends on two considerations	 firstly	 does the constitutional prohibition which has been infringed affect the competence of the Legislature to enact the law or does it merely operate as a check on the exercise of a power which is within its competence; and secondly	 if it is merely a check	 whether it is enacted for the benefit of individuals or whether it is imposed for the benefit of the general public on grounds of public policy. If the statute is beyond the competence of the Legislature	 as for example	 when a State enacts a law which is within the exclusive competence of the Union	 it would be a nullity. That would also be the position when a limitation is imposed on the legislative power in the interests of the public	 as	 for instance	 the provisions in Chapter XIII of the Constitution relating to inter State trade and commerce. But when the law is within the com petence of the Legislature and the unconstitutionality arises by reason of its repugnancy to provisions enacted for the benefit of individuals	 it is not a nullity but is merely unenforceable. Such an unconstitutionality can be waived and in that case the law becomes enforceable. In America this principle is well setted. (Vide Cooley on Constitutional Limitations	 Volume 1	 pages 368 to 371; Willis on Constitutional Law	 at pages 524	 531	 542 and 558; Rottschaefer on Constitutional Law	 at pages 28 and 29 30). In Shepard vs Barron(1)	 it was observed that "provisions of a constitutional nature	 intended for the protection of the property owner	 may be waived by him. " In Pierce vs Somerset Railway(2)	 (1) ; ; (2) I71 U.S. 64I ; ; 639 the position was thus stated: "A person may by his acts or omission to act waive a right which he might otherwise have under the Constitution of the United States	 as well as under a statute." In Pierce Oil Corporation vs Phoenix Refining Co.(1)	 where a statute was impugned on the ground that it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the rights of a corporation to carry on business and thereby violated the rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment	 the Court observed "There is nothing in the nature of such a constitutional right as is here asserted to prevent its being waived or the right to claim it barred	 as other rights may be	 by deliberate election or by conduct inconsistent with the assertion of such a right." The position must be the same under our Constitution when a law contravenes a prescription intended for the benefit of individuals. The rights guaranteed under article 19(1) (f) are enacted for the benefit of owners of properties and when a law is found to infringe that provision	 it is open to. any person whose rights have been infringed to waive it and when there is waiver there is no legal impediment to the enforcement of the law. It would be otherwise if the statute was a nullity; in which case it can neither be waived nor enforced. If then the law is merely unenforceable and can take effect when waived it cannot be treated as non est and as effaced out of the statute book. It is scarcely necessary to add that the question of waiver is relevant to the present controversy not as bearing on any issue of fact arising for determination in this case but as showing the nature of the right declared under article 19(1) (f) and the effect in law of a statute contravening it. Another point of distinction noticed by American jurists between unconstitutionality arising by reason of lack of legislative competence and that arising by reason of a check imposed on a competent Legislature may also be mentioned. While a statute passed by a Legislature which had no competence cannot acquire validity when the Legislature subsequently acquires competence	 a statute which was within the competence of the Legislature at the time of its enactment but (1) 259 U S 125; ; 640 which infringes a constitutional prohibition could be enforced proprio vigore when once the prohibition is removed. The law is thus stated in Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States	 Volume 1	 at page 11: "The validity of a statute is to be tested by the constitutional power of a legislature at the time of its enactment by that legislature		 and	 if thus tested it is beyond the legislative power	 it is not rendered valid	 without re enactment	 if later	 by constitutional amendment	 the necessary legislative power is granted. However	 it has been held that where an act is within the general legislative power of the enacting body	 but is rendered unconstitutional by reason of some adventitious circumstance	 as for example	 when a State legislature is prevented from regulating a matter by reason of the fact that the Federal Congress has already legislated upon that matter	 or	 by reason of its silence	 is to be construed as indicating that there should be no regulation	 the act does not need to be re enacted in order to be enforced	 if this cause of its unconstitutionality is removed. " The authority cited in support of this observation is the decision in Wilkerson vs Rahrer(1). There the State of Kansas enacted a law in 1889 forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors in the state. Though it was valid with reference to intra state sales	 it was unconstitutional in so far as it related to inter State sales. In 1890 the Congress passed a legislation conferring authority on the States to enact prohibition laws with reference to inter State trade. A prosecution having been instituted under the 1889 Act in respect of sales effected after the Congress legislation of 1890	 one of the contentions urged was that as the State law was unconstitutional when it was enacted it was void and it could not be enforced even though the bar had been removed by the Congress legislation of 1890. In repelling this contention the Court observed: " This is not the case of a law enacted in the unauthorized exercise of a power exclusively confided to Congress	 but of a law which it was competent for (1) ; ; 35 L. Ed.572. 641 the State to pass	 but which could not operate upon articles occupying a certain situation until the passage of the Act of Congress. That Act in terms removed the obstacle	 and we perceive no adequate ground for adjudging that a re enactment of the State law was required before it could have the effect upon imported which it had always had upon domestic property. " The position is thus stated by Cooley in his work on Constitutional Law	 at page 201 : " A court 's decision merely decides the case that is then under adjudication	 and a finding of unconstitu tionality does not destroy the statute but. merely involves a refusal to enforce it. " Rottschaefer	 after referring to the conflict of authorities on the point in the States refers to the decision in Wilkerson V. Rahrer(1)	 as embodying the better view. This question again	 it may be noted	 does not arise as such for determination in this case and is material only as showing that an infringement of a constitutional ' prohibition which does not affect the competence of a Legislature but is merely a check on its exercise does not render the law a nullity. In view of the principles discussed above	 the use of the word "void" in article 13(1) is not decisive on the question as to the precise effect of a law being repugnant to article 19(1) (f). Reference may be made in this connection to the statement of the law in Corpus Juris	 Volume 67	 page 263 et seq.	 to which counsel for the respondent invited our attention. It is there pointed out that the word "void" in statutes and decisions might mean either that is "absolutely void" or "relatively void" ; that "that is 'absolutely void which the law or the nature of things forbids to be enforced at all	 and that is relatively void ' which the law condemns as a wrong to individuals and refuses to enforce as against them"; that what is absolutely void is incapable of confirmation and ratification; and that what is relatively void could be waived. The true scope of article 13(1) was considered by this Court in Kesavan Madhava Menon vs State Of (I) ; ; 642 Bombay(1). There the point for determination was whether the Constitution was retrospective in its operation. In the course of his judgment Das J. observed: "It should further be seen that article 13(1) does not in terms make the existing laws which are inconsistent with the fundamental rights void ab initio or for all purposes. On the contrary	 it provides that all existing laws	 in so far as they are inconsistent with the fundamental rights	 shall be void to the extent of their inconsistency. They are not void for all purposes but they are void only to the extent they come into conflict with the fundamental rights. . . Article 13(1) cannot be read as obliterating the entire operation of the inconsistent laws	 or to wipe them out altogether from the statute book. . . . The effect of article 13(1) is quite different from the effect of the expiry of a temporary statute or the repeal of a statute by a subsequent statute. As already explained	 article 13(1) only has the effect of nullifying or rendering all inconsistent existing laws ineffectual or nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect only with respect to the exercise of fundamental rights on and after the date of commencement of the Constitution. " It is true that the question which the Court was considering there was different from the one which we have now to decide in this appeal. But those observations embody a principle which is applicable to the present case as well. In effect	 "void" in article 13(1) was construed as meaning	 in the language of American jurists	 "relatively void. Therefore both on the ground that a judicial determination does not operate as an amendment of the statute and	 on the ground that a declaration that the impugned law is void under article 13(1) as repugnant to article 19(1) (f) merely renders it unenforceable	 I am of the opinion that the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) cannot be held to remove medicinal preparations from out of the purview of section 13(b). I therefore agree with the learned Judges (1) ; 643 of the Bombay High Court	 though not for the reasons given by them	 that the burden of establishing that. what was consumed was a medicinal preparation lies on the appellant. It was next contended that even if the burden lay on the appellant	to prove that he had taken a medicinal preparation	 he must be held on the evidence to have discharged it because the doctor who examined him at 11 30 P.m.	 on the day of the occurrence stated in his evidence that he was coherent in his speech and could walk along a straight line	 that the smelling of alcohol could be caused by oxidation and that the condition of the conjunctive in the eyes could result from street dust. It was argued that if the prosecution evidence did not exclude the possibility of the defence being true	 then notwithstanding section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden which lay on the posecution of establishing the offence had not been discharged and reliance was placed on the decision in Woolmington vs Director of Public Prosecutions(1)	 and on Indian authorities wherein it was followed: Emperor vs U.Damapala(2); Parbhoo vs Emperor(1). In opposition to these authorities counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in Government of Bombay vs Sakur(4). The question is whether if the burden lay upon the appellant the conclusion of the learned Judges that it had not been discharged is on the evidence a reasonable one. If it is	 this Court cannot interfere with it in an appeal under article 136. It must be noted that the appellant himself led no evidence in support of the plea. If at least the evidence which the prosecution adduced disclosed facts which would lend support to the defence	 it might then have been open to the appellant to rely on them without himself having to adduce independent evidence but none such were elicited. The learned Judges in the Court below have approached the case from the correct standpoint and have discussed the entire evidence with a view to find whether on that the (1) ; (2) I.L.R. 14 Rang. (3) I.L.R. 194i All. (4) A.I.R. 1947 Bom. 38; 48 Bom. L.R. 616. 644 defence was reasonably probable. They held that the giving of coherent answers or walking in a straight line would only show that the appellant was not drunk at that time but would not show that he had not consumed liquor. They also remarked that the appellant could have informed both the sub inspector and the doctor who examined him that he had taken medicine in which case the police might have been in a position to find out whether there was a medicine bottle at his residence at that time. If the learned Judges were right in their view that the burden lay on the appellant	 their finding that it had not been discharged is not one which is open to attack. It was also contended that the trial magistrate having acquitted the appellant	 the presumption of innocence which the law raises in favour of the accused became reinforced and that there were no compelling reasons for the appellate Court to have reversed the order of acquittal. But the judgment of the trial Court was based on the view that the burden was on the prosecution to establish that the accused had not taken a medicinal preparation and when the learned Judges differed from that view	 they had to review the evidence afresh and decide whether the appellant had discharged the burden and their finding on the question is not vitiated by any misdirection. In the result the conviction of the appellant under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act must be confirmed. As regards the sentence of one month 's imprisonment passed on him	 it appears that he has already served 22 days out of it. The justice of the case does not require that he should be again sent to jail. I would	 therefore	 reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. Subject to this modification	 I am of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. By THE Court Having regard to the judgments of the majority	 the appeal will be dismissed subject to the modification that the sentence imposed upon the appellant will be reduced to that already undergone. Bail bond will be cancelled. Appeal dismissed and sentence reduced. 645 [There was an application for review of the aforesaid Judgments under article 137 of the Constitution and the Hon 'ble Judges of the original Bench (Bhagwati	 Jagannadhadas and Venkatarama Ayyar JJ.) passed the following order dated 28th April	 1954	 referring the case for the opinion of the Constitution Bench.] The Order of the Court was pronounced by BHAGWATI J. We grant the review and reopen the case to enable us to obtain the opinion of a larger Bench on the constitutional question raised in the judgments previously delivered by us. Under proviso to article 145 of the Constitution	 we refer the following question for the opinion of the Constitution Bench of the Court. "What is the effect of the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara(1) that clause (b) of section 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 is void	 under article 13(1) of the Constitution	 in so far as it affects the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 on the ground that it infringes article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution?" On receipt of the opinion the case will be taken up for further consideration. [In pursuance of the above reference under the proviso to article 145(3) of the Constitution their Lordships of the Constitution Bench (Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J.	 Mukherjea	 section R. Das	 Vivian Bose and Ghulam Hasan JJ.) gave the following Opinion dated 23rd September	 1954.] MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J. (Mukherjea	 Vivian Bose and Ghulam Hasan JJ. concurring) A Bench of this Court hearing an appeal under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution has referred	 under article 145(3) of the Constitution	 for the opinion of the Constitution Bench the following point: "What is the effect of the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara(1) that clause (b) of section 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 is void	 under article 13(1) of the Constitution	 in so far as it affects the consumption or use of liquid (1) 83 646 medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 on 	the ground that it infringes article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution?" The facts giving rise to the reference are these: Shri Pesikaka	 the appellant in the case	 was at the relevant period	 officiating Regional Transport Officer	 Bombay Region. On the 29th May	 1951	 at about 9 30 P.m.	 while proceeding in his jeep towards Colaba Bus Stand	 he knocked down three persons. He was arrested by the police and taken to the police station and then to St. George 's Hospital. The doctor	 found his breath smelling of alcohol	 conjunctiva congested	 pupils semi dilated and reacting to light	 and speech coherent. He could behave himself and walk along a straight line. In the opinion of the doctor the appellant did not seem to be under the influence of alcohol	 though he had taken alcohol in some form or other. On these facts. the appellant was prosecuted for having committed offences under section 338	 Indian Penal Code (rash driving)	 as well as under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In defence it was suggested that he had taken a medicinal preparation	 B.G. Phos	 and had not consumed any liquor	 and that on the night in q question he had taken at about 9 or 9 15 p.m. after dinner a dose of B. G. Phos which contained 17 per cent. of alcohol according to its formula. The learned Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the finding that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt under either of the sections under which he was charged. With regard. to the offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 it was observed that there were certain medicinal preparations which were allowed to be used by law	 and there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the appellant had not consumed those tonics but only liquor for which he ought to have a permit. The State of Bombay appealed against the acquittal order to the High Court. The High Court confirmed the acquittal in regard to the charge under section 338	 Indian Penal Code	 but reversed the order acquitting him of the charge under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act followed a decision of its own ' Division 647 Bench in Rangrao Bala Mane vs The State (supra) where it had been held that once it was proved by the prosecution that a person had drunk or consumed liquor without a permit	 it was for that person to show that the liquor drunk by him was not prohibited liquor	 but was alcohol or liquor which he was permitted by law to take	 e.g.	 medicated alcohol. On this view of the law	 on the merits of the case it was held that the appellant had failed to prove the existence of circum stances from which the Court could come to the conclusion that the liquor which was consumed by the appellant was not prohibited liquor but liquor which was excepted by the Bombay Prohibition Act from its operation. In the result the appellant was sentenced to one month 's rigorous imprisonment and a fine. of Rs. 500. Against this order an appeal was admitted in this Court by special leave and was heard by a Bench of the Court consisting of Bhagwati	 Jagannadhadas and Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. on the 19th February	 1954. The learned Judges could not reach an una nimous decision and expressed different and divergent opinions. Bhagwati J. wanted to allow the appeal and quash the conviction. He was of the opinion that the onus rested on the prosecution to prove that the liquor consumed by the appellant was prohibited liquor under section 13(b) of the Act and that the prosecution had failed to prove this. This	 in the opinion of the learned Judge	 was the consequence of the declaration of unconstitutionality of a portion of section 13(b) by this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). Venkatarama Ayyar dissented from this view. He was of the opinion that the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) could not be held to have the effect of taking out medicinal preparations from the purview of section 13(b) and that its effect was merely to render that part of the section unenforceable and that the onus rested on the accused to establish the plea of unconstitutionality	 and it could not be held established unless all the elements necessary to sustain such a plea were proved and the accused had therefore to make out as a fact that what he had 648 consumed was a medicinal 'preparation. On the merits of the case it was held that the accused had failed to discharge the burden that rested on him. In the result the conviction of the appellant by the High Court was upheld. Jagannadhadas J. agreed in the result reached by Venkatarama Ayyar J. but on different grounds. lie was of the opinion that the only way to give full effect to the judgment in The	 State Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) was to engraft an appropriate exception or proviso upon section 13(b) in the light of that decision. He considered that The State of Bombay and Another vs F.	 N. Balsara (supra) did not import a new definition or re write section 13(b). It kept the section intact but treated the consumption of liquid or medicinal preparations containing alcohol as beyond its ambit and thus engrafted an exception or proviso on to section 13(b). On this view of the effect of Balsara 's decision it was held that the onus rested on the accused to establish that his case fell within the exception and he had failed to discharge that onus. In accordance with the opinion of the majority the conviction of the appellant	 under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed but the sentence was reduced to that already undergone. On a petition for review being presented	 the learned Judges granted the review on the 26th April	 1954	 and reopened the case	 to enable them to obtain the opinion of the Constitution Bench of this Court on the constitutional question formulated and mentioned above. For a proper appreciation of the question referred to us	 it is necessary to set out what this Court decided In The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). In that case the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prohibition Act (XXV of 1949) was challenged on different grounds. This attack substantially failed and the Act was maintained as it was passed	 with the exception of 'a few provisions that were declared invalid. Inter alia	 clause (b) of section 13 so far as it affected the consumption or use of such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol was held invalid. 640 Section 2(24) of the Act defined a "liquor" to include spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol. Section 13(b) prohibits the use or consumption of liquor without a permit. Section 66(b) which is the penal section provides that "whoever in contravention of the provisions of this Act consumes	 uses any intoxicant shall	 on conviction	 be punished. " The appellant was charged under section 66(b) of the Act for having used or consumed liquor the use of which was prohibited by section 13(b). In The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 the part of the section that brought all liquids containing alcohol within its ambit was declared invalid and the section therefore	 though it stood intact as enacted in respect of prohibited liquor up to the date of the coming into force of the Constitution and qua non citizens subsequently	 a part of it was declared invalid	 and so far as it concerned citizens	 qua them that part of the section ceased to have legal effect. The problem now raised is; what is the effect of this partial declaration of the invalidity of section 13(b) on the case of a citizen prosecuted under section 66(b) for committing a breach of the provisions of the section after the coming into force of the Constitution. Our opinion on this question is that the effect of the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 that clause (b) of section 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act is void under article 13(1) of the Constitution in so far as it affects the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 is to render part of section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 inoperative	 ineffective and ineffectual and thus unenforceable. The part of the section which has been declared void has no legal force so far as citizens are concerned and it cannot be recognized as valid law for determining the rights of citizens. In other words	 the ambit of the section stands narrowed down so far as its enforceability against citizens is concerned and no notice can be taken of the part of the section struck down in a prosecution for contravention of the provisions of that section	 with 650 the consequence that in prosecutions against citizens of India under section 13(b)	 the offence of contravention of the section can only be proved if it is established that they have used or consumed liquor or an intoxicant which is prohibited by that part of the section which has been declared valid and enforceable and without reference to its unenforceable part. No notice at all should be taken of that other part as it has no relevance in such an enquiry	 having no legal effect. In a criminal case unless the prosecution proves a contravention of a provision that is legally enforceable and valid	 it cannot succeed. No onus is cast on the accused to prove that his case falls under that part of the section which has been held unenforceable. The High Court was in error in placing the onus on the accused to prove that he had consumed alcohol that could be consumed without a permit merely on proof that he was smelling of alcohol. In our judgment	 that was not the correct approach to the question. The bare circumstance that a citizen accused of an offence under section 66(b) is smelling of alcohol is compatible both with his innocence as well as his guilt. It is a neutral circumstance. The smell of alcohol may be due to the fact that the accused had contravened the enforceable part of section 13(b) of the Prohibition Act. It may well be due also to the tact that he had taken alcohol which fell under the unenforceable and inoperative part of the section. That being so	 it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the alcohol of which he was smelling was such that it came within the category of prohibited alcohols and the onus was not discharged or shifted by merely proving a smell of alcohol. The onus thus cast on the prosecution may be light or heavy according to the circumstances of each case. The intensity of the smell itself may be such that it may negative its being of a permissible variety. Export evidence may prove that consumption in small doses of medicinal or other preparations permitted cannot produce the smell or a state of body or mind amounting to drunkenness. Be that as it may	 the question is one of fact to be decided according to the circumstance of each case. It is open to the accused to prove in defence that what he 651 consumed was not prohibited alcohol	 but failure of the defence to prove it cannot lead to his conviction unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Judge by the prosecution that the case comes within the enforceable part of section 13(b)	 contravention of which alone is made an offence under the provisions of section 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Our reasons for this opinion are these. The meaning to be given to the expression "void" in article 13(1) is no longer res integra. It stands concluded by the majority decision in Kesava Madhava Menon vs The State of Bombay(	). The minority view there was that the word "void" had the same meaning as " repeal" and therefore a statute which came into clash with fundamental rights stood obliterated from the statute book altogether	 and that such a statute was void ab initio. The majority however held that the word "void" in article 13(1)	 so far as existing laws were concerned	 could not be held to obliterate them from the statute book	 and could not make such laws void altogether	 because in its opinion	 article 13 had not been given any retrospective effect. The majority however held that after the coming into force of the Constitution the effect of article 13(1) on such repug nant laws was that it nullified them	 and made them ineffectual and nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect. It was further pointed out in one of the judgments representing the majority view	 that the American rule that if a statute is repugnant to the Constitution the statute is void from its birth	 has no application to cases concerning obligations incurred or rights accrued in accordance with an existing law that was constitutional in its inception	 but that if any law was made after the 26th January	 1950	 which was repugnant to the Constitution	 then the same rule shall have to be followed in India as followed in America. The result therefore of this pronouncement is that the part of the section of an existing law which is un constitutional is not law	 and is null and void. For determining the rights and obligations of citizens the part declared void should be notionally taken to be (I) (1951] S.C.R	 228. 652 obliterated. from the section for all intents and purposes	 though it may remain written on the statute book and be a good law when a question arises for determination of rights and obligations incurred prior to 26th January	 1950	 and also for the determination of rights of persons who have not been given fundamental rights by the Constitution. Thus	 in this situation	 there is no scope for introducing terms like "relatively void" coined by American Judges in construing a Constitution which is not drawn up in similar language and the implications of which are not quite familiar in this country. We are also not able to endorse the opinion expressed by our learned brother	 Venkatarama Ayyar	 that a declaration of unconstitutionality brought about by lack of legislative power stands on a different footing from a declaration of unconstitutionality brought about by reason of abridgement of fundamental rights. We think that it is not a correct proposition that constitutional provisions in Part III of our Constitution merely operate as a check on the exercise of legislative power. It is axiomatic that when the lawmaking power of a State is restricted by a written fundamental law	 then any law enacted and opposed to the fundamental law is in excess of the legislative authority and is thus a nullity. Both these declarations of unconstitutionality go to the root of the power itself and there is no real distinction between them. They represent but two aspects of want of legislative power. The legislative power of Parliament and the State Legislatures as conferred by articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution stands curtailed by the fundamental rights chapter of Constitution. A mere reference to the provisions of article 13(2) and articles 245 and 246 is sufficient to indicate that there is no competency in Parliament or a State Legislature to make a law which comes info clash with Part III of the Constitution after the coming into force of the Constitution. Article 13(2) is in these terms : "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges; the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall	 to the extent of the contravention	 be void. " 653 This is a clear and unequivocal mandate of the funda mental law prohibiting the State from making any laws which come into conflict with Part III of the Constitution. The authority thus conferred by articles 245 and 246 to make laws subject wise in the different Legislatures is qualified by the declaration made in article 13(2). That power can only be exercised subject to the prohibition contained in article 13(2). On the construction of article 13(2) there was no divergence of opinion between the majority and the minority in Kesava Madhava Menon vs The State of Bombay (supra). It was only on the construction of article 13(1) that the difference arose because it was felt that that article could not retrospectively invalidate laws which when made were constitutional according to the Constitution then in force. Again	 we are not able to subscribe to the view that in a criminal prosecution it is open to an accused person to waive his constitutional right and get convicted. A reference. to Cooley 's Constitutional Limitations	 Vol. I	 p. 371	 makes the proposition clear. Therein the learned professor says that a party may consent to waive rights of property	 but the trial and punishment for public offences are not within the province of individual consent or agreement. In our opinion	 the doctrine of waiver enunciated by some American Judges in construing the American Constitution cannot be introduced in our Constitution without a fuller discussion of the matter. No inference in deciding the case should have been raised on the basis of such a theory. The learned Attorney General when questioned about the doctrine did not seem to be very enthusiastic about it. Without finally expressing an opinion on this question we are not for the moment convinced that this theory has any relevancy in construing the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of our Constitution. We think that the rights described as fundamental rights are a necessary consequence of the declaration in the preamble that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens justice	 social	 economic and political; 84 654 liberty of thought	 expression	 belief	 faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity. These fundamental rights have not been put in the Constitution merely for individual benefit	 though ultimately they come into operation in considering individual rights. They have been put there as a matter of public policy and the doctrine of waiver can have no application to provisions of law which have been enacted as a matter of constitutional policy. Reference to some of the articles	 inter alia	 articles 15(1)	 20	 21 makes the proposition quite plain. A citizen cannot get discrimination by telling the State "You can discriminate"	 or get convicted by waiving the protection given under articles 20 and 21. The learned Attorney General contended that the correct approach to the question was that there being a strong Presumption in favour of the constitutionality	 of a statute	 it is for those who assail it as unconstitutional to establish it	 and therefore it was for the appellant to establish that the statute was. unconstitutional	 and that unless he proved facts requisite for the constitutional invalidity of the conviction he could not succeed. We cannot agree that that is a correct way of judging criminal cases. The constitutional invalidity of a part of section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act having been declared by this Court	 that part of the section ceased to have any legal effect in judging cases of citizens and had to be regarded as null and void in determining whether a citizen was guilty of an offence. Article 141 of the Constitution declares that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. In view of this clear enactment there is no scope in India for the application of the American doctrine enunciated by Willoughby ("The Constitution of the United States" Vol. I	 P. 10)	 wherein the learned author states	 "the declaration by a court of unconstitutionality of a statute which is in conflict with the Constitution affects the parties only and there is no judgment against the statute; that the opinion or reasons of the court may operate as a precedent for the determination of other similar cases	 but it does 655 not strike the statute from the statute book; the parties to that suit are concluded by the judgment	 but no one else is bound; a new litigant may bring a new suit	 based on the very same statute	 and the former decision cannot be pleaded as an estoppel	 but can be relied on only as a precedent. " Once a statute is declared void under article 13(1) or 13(2) by this Court	 that declaration has the force of law	 and the statute so declared void is no longer law qua persons whose fundamental rights are thus infringed. In America there is no similar statutory provision and that being so	 the doctrine enunciated by the learned author can have no application here. In this country once a law has been struck down as unconstitutional law by a Court	 no notice can be taken of that law by any Court	 and in every case an accused person need not start proving that the law is unconstitutional. The Court is not empowered to look at that part of the law which has been declared as void	 and therefore there is no onus resting on the accused person to prove that the law that has already been declared unconstitutional is unconstitutional in that particular case as well. The Court has to take notice only of what the law of the land is	 and convict the accused only if he contravenes the law of the land. Our learned brother	 Jagannadhadas J.	 took the view that the only appropriate way of giving effect to the judgment in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) was by engrafting an exception or proviso to section 13(b) in the light of that decision and that the onus of proving the exception was on the accused person. This	 in our judgment	 is again not a true approach to the question. As pointed out by the learned Judge himself	 the Court has no power to re write the section. It has to be kept intact. The Court therefore has no power to engraft an exception or a proviso on section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Apart from this circumstance it seems plain that unless there is a power to make a law inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution	 there can be no power to engraft an exception of the nature suggested by our brother. An exception or proviso 656 can only be engrafted for the purpose of excluding from the substantive part of the section certain matters which but for the proviso would be within it. But when there is no power to enact at all what is proposed to be embodied in the exception	 there is no power to enact an exception by enacting a law which the Legislature is not competent to make. The State has no power to make a law abridging fundamental rights and therefore there is no power to engraft an exception by taking something out of a law which cannot be enacted. It is therefore difficult to treat what was declared void in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) as an exception to section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and apply the rule enunciated in sec tion 105 of the Evidence Act to the case of the appellant. The only correct approach to the subject is to ignore the part of the section declared void by this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) and see if the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the offence home to the accused on the part of the section that remains good law. With the observations made above the opinion in this case is returned to the Bench which originally heard the appeal. DAS J. I respectfully beg to differ from the opinion of the majority of this Court just delivered by my Lord the Chief Justice. It is	 therefore	 incumbent on me to formulate my answer to the question referred to this Constitution Bench and state shortly the reasons in support thereof. It is necessary at the outset to refer to the relevant statutory provisions bearing on the question. The appellant before us was prosecuted on a charge under section 13 read with section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949 (Act XXV of 1949). The relevant part of section 66(b) of the Act which is the penal section reads as follows: "66. Whoever in contravention of the provisions of this Act (a). . . . . (b)consumes	 uses	 possesses or transports any intoxicant or hemp	 657 (c). . . . . . . (d). . . . . . . shall	 on conviction	 be punished. . . " By section 2 (22) "intoxicant" is defined as meaning "any liquor	 intoxicating drug	 opium or a any Other substance which the State Government may	 by notification in the Official Gazette	 declare to be an intoxicant. " Read in the light of this definition consumption	 use	 etc.	 of "liquor" is within the mischief of this section. Further	 it will be noticed that what is made punishable is not consumption	 use	 etc. of liquor simpliciter but consumption	 use	 etc.	 of liquor "in contravention of the provisions of this Act. " The prosecution	 as the charge shows	 relied on section 13 as being the provision of the Act in contravention of which the consumption	 use	 etc.	 was alleged to have been made by the appellant who was the accused person. That section is to be found in Chapter III beaded "Prohibitions". So far as it is material for our purpose	 it runs thus: "13. No person shall (b) consume or use liquor; or (c) By section 2 (24) "liquor" is defined as including "(a) spirits of wine; denatured spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol; and (b) any other intoxicating substance which the State Government may	 by notification in the Official Gazette	 declare to be liquor for the purposes of this Act. " Therefore the prohibition of section 13(b)extends to the consumption or use of each and everyone of the above enumerated items which are included in the definition of "liquor". It follows that whoever consumes or uses any of these enumerated substances contravenes the provisions of section 13(b) and consumption or use of any of these substances in contravention of this provision is an offence punishable under section 66(b). 658 The Bombay Prohibition Act containing the above 	provisions came into force on the 20th May	 1949. It is conceded on all hands that it was a perfectly valid piece of legislation enacted well within its legislative competency by the then Bombay Legislative Assembly. Then came the Constitution of India on the 26th January	 1950. Article 19(1)(f) gives to all citizens the fundamental right to acquire	 hold and dispose of property. By sub article(5) however	it is provided that nothing in clause(f) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes	 or prevent the State from making any law imposing	 reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by sub clause (f) either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. The Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 was an existing law. By virtue of sub article (5) the right conferred by sub clause (f) cannot affect the operation of the Act in so far as it imposes reasonable restrictions of the kind mentioned in that sub article. If	 however	 this existing law imposes restrictions which are unreasonable then it becomes inconsistent with the right guaranteed to the citizens by article 19(1)(f) and consequently under article 13(1) "shall	 to the extent of such inconsistency	 be void". It is beyond all dispute that it is for the Court to judge whether the restrictions imposed by any existing law or any Part thereof on the fundamental rights of citizens are reasonable or unreasonable in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. If the Court holds that the restrictions are unreasonable then the Act or the part thereof which imposes such unreasonable restrictions comes into conflict and becomes inconsistent with the fundamental right con ferred on the citizens by article 19(1)(f) and is by article 13(1). rendered void	 not in toto or for all purposes or for all persons but "to the extent of such inconsistency"	 i.e.	 to the extent it is inconsistent with the exercise of that fundamental right by the citizens. This is plainly the position	 as I see it. Shortly after the commencement of the Constitution the validity of the Bombay Prohibition Act was 659 challenged in its entirety. One F. N. Balsara	 claiming to be an Indian citizen prayed to the High Court	 at Bombay	 infer alia	 for a writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay and the Prohibition Commissioner ordering them (i) to forbear from enforcing against him the provisions of the Prohibition Act and (ii) to allow him to exercise his right to possess	 consume and use certain articles	 namely	 whisky	 brandy	 wine	 beer	 medicated wine	 eau de cologne	 lavender water and medicinal preparations containing alcohol. The High Court	 agreeing with some of the petitioner 's contentions and disagreeing with others	 declared some of the provisions of the Act to be invalid and the rest to be valid. Both the State of Bombay and the petitioner	 Balsara	 appealed to this Court after obtaining a certificate from the High Court under article 132(1) of the Constitution. The judgment of this Court in those appeals was pronounced on the 25th May	 1951. See The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). So far as it is material for our present purpose this Court held (1) that under entry 31 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act	 1935	 the Provincial Legislatures had the power to make laws with respect to "intoxicating liquors	 that is to say	 the 'production	 manufacture	 possession	 transport	 purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors" and there was	 therefore	 no legislative incompetency in the Bombay Legislature to enact the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949; (2) that the word "liquor" as understood in India at the time of the Government of India Act	 1935	 covered not only those alcoholic liquids which are generally used as beverages and produce intoxication	 but also liquids containing alcohol and	 therefore	 the definition of "liquor" contained in section 2(24) of the Act was not ultra vires	 and (3) that the restrictions imposed by sections 12 and 13 of the Act on the possession	 sale	 use and consumption of liquor were not reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19(1)(f)	 so far as medicinal and toilet preparations containing 660 alcohol were concerned and that the said sections were invalid so far as they prohibited the possession	 sale	 use. and consumption of these articles	 but that those sections were not wholly void on this ground as the earlier categories mentioned in the definition of liquor	 namely	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirit	 wine	 beer and toddy were distinctly separable items which were easily severable from the last category	 namely	 all liquors containing alcohol and further that the last category of "all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol" were again capable of being split up in several sub categories	 e.g.	 liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol and the restrictions on the possession	 sale	 use and consumption of the earlier categories and all liquids containing alcohol other than medicinal and toilet preparations were not unreasonable. In the result this Court declared certain provisions of the Act invalid. Amongst the provisions declared invalid was section 13(b)	 but it was so declared only "so far as it affects the consumption or use of such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol." This declaration	 no doubt	 was made pursuant to article 13(1) of the Constitution. The very foundation of this declaration was that the prohibition imposed by this section against the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations was an unreasonable restriction on the exercise of the fundamental right of citizens to acquire	 hold and dispose of property which in that case was liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol ' The law thus declared by this Court is	 by virtue of article 141 of the Constitution	 binding on all Courts within the territory of India. The offence with which the appellant was charged was alleged to have been committed on the 29th May	 1951	 that is to say	 four days after this Court pronounced its judgment in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra). On the 22nd April	 1952	 the learned Presidency Magistrate acquitted the appellant of that charge with the following remark: "The evidence also does not go to show conclusively that the accused had consumed alcohol without a permit There are. certain medicinal preparations which are 661 allowed to be used by law and there must be satisfactory evidence to show that the accused has not consumed those tonics but only liquor for which he ought to have a permit. " The State appealed to the High Court against this order of acquittal. The High Court following its own earlier decision in Rangrao Bala	 Mane vs State (supra) reversed the order of the Presidency Magistrate. The appellant came up to this Court in appeal after having obtained special leave from this Court. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Bhagwati	 Jagannadhadas and Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. Bhagwati J. clearly and	 if I may respectfully say so	 correctly accepted the position that the declaration made by this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) "was a judicial pronouncement and that even though under article 141 of the Constitution the law declared by this Court was binding on all Courts in India and is to be the law of the land the effect of that declaration was not to enact a statutory provision or to alter or amend section 13(b) of the Act." Having accepted this position the learned Judge logically and	 again I say with respect	 correctly repelled the argu ment that the result of the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) was to introduce	 not in terms but in effect	 an exception or proviso to section 13(b) and that consequently the onus lay on the appellant to prove the existence of circumstances bringing his case within the exception or proviso as laid down in section 105 of the Evidence Act. The learned Judge	 however	 observed: "The only effect of the declaration was that the prohibition enacted in section 13(b) was to be enforce. able in regard to the consumption or use of validly prohibited liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and 85 662 non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol. The prohibition which was enacted in section 13(b) against the consumption or use of liquor could in the light of the declaration made by this Court only refer to the consumption or use of validly prohibited liquor	 i.e.	 spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol	 and that was the only prohibition which could be enforced under the section 13(b) and the penal section 66(b). " The learned Judge proceeded to illustrate how the effect of the declaration could be worked out: "The effect of the declaration on the provisions of section 13(b) could be worked out in any of the following modes: No person shall consume or use spirits of wine	 methylated spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy and all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol as are not or which are not or other than or save or except or provided they are not or but shall not include liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol or all non medicinal and non toilet liquid preparations consisting of or containing alcohol. When these several interpretations were possible in regard to the effect of the declaration on the provisions of section	13(b)	 where would be the justification for interpreting the effect of the declaration to be that of grafting an exception or proviso on section 13(b) so as to attract the operation of the provisions of section 105 of the Evidence Act9 It is clear that where several interpretations are possible	 the Court should adopt an interpretation favourable to the accused	 rather than one which casts an extra or special burden upon him	 which if at all should be done by clear and unequivocal provision in that behalf rather than in this indirect manner. (See also In re Kanakasabai Pillai)(1). " With the utmost respect to the learned Judge	 the modes of working out the effect of the declaration indicated by him clearly involve the acceptance of one or other of the different forms of amendment of the section	 although according to his views expressed (1) A.I. R. 1940 Mad. I. 663 earlier in his judgment the effect of the declaration was not to alter or amend section 13(b) of the Act. Venkatarama Ayyar J.	 however	 took the view that as the Court had no legislative function and as judicial decisions did not amend or add to a statute but merely interpreted the law and declared whether it was valid or not	 the result of a judicial declaration that a statute or any part thereof was not valid was only that no effect could be given to it in a Court of law but that it did not mean that the statute or the part thereof declared void had gone out of the statute book after the Court 's decision. He also held that section 105 of the Evidence Act would not in terms apply as article 19(1)(f) could not be said to form an exception to section 13(b). He rested his decision on the ground that the inclusive definition of "liquor" adopted in section 2(24) of the Act having been held to be within entry 31 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act	 1935	 and	 therefore	 valid	 that meaning should be its connotation in section 13(b) as well and that under the section so read the offence would be established as soon as consumption or use of "liquor" so defined was established and that the plea that what was consumed was medicinal preparation containing alcohol was really a plea that the section	 in so far as it prohibits consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 infringed the citizens ' fundamental right under article 19(1)(f) and was	 therefore	 unconstitutional as declared by this Court. His view was that it was for those who pleaded unconstitutionality to establish all the elements which would go to establish that plea. Jagannadhadas J. felt inclined to agree with the view of Venkatarama Ayyar J. but as that aspect of the matter had not been fully argued he passed on to the argument canvassed before them	 namely	 that the part of the section declared invalid went out of the Act and the Act stood appropriately amended pro tanto. This	 according to the learned Judge	 involved	 that the word "liquor" stood amended as "prohibited liquor" or that it was to be understood with this limited connotation. This argument he could not accept. His view was that what the decision in The	 State of Bombay and Another vs 664 F. N. Balsara (supra) had done was not to authorise 	the importation of a new definition or to rewrite the section but	 leaving the section intact	 to treat the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol as taken out of the ambit of the section itself as the prohibition thereof was unconstitutional. This	 according to the learned Judge	 could only be done by grafting an appropriate exception or proviso into section 13(b). The result of the hearing before that Bench was that Bhagwati J. held that the appeal should be allowed but Jagannadhadas and Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. were for dismissing the appeal. An application for review was	 however	 made on the ground that the judgments of the learned Judges involved a decision on constitutional matters which that Bench had no jurisdiction to decide but which could only be dealt with by a Constitution Bench. By an order made on the 26th April	 1954	 under the proviso to sub article (3) of article 145 that Bench accordingly referred the following question for the opinion of the Constitution Bench	 namely: "What is the effect of the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) that clause (b) of section 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 1949	 is void	 under article 13(1) of the Constitution	 in so far as it affects the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 on the ground that it infringes article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution?" The effect of a judicial declaration of a statute as unconstitutional has been stated by Field J. in Norton vs Shelby County(1) to be that the statute is no law and that	 in legal contemplation	 it is to be treated as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Cooley	 in his Constitutional Limitations	 Volume 1	 page 382	 has adopted this dictum of Field J. and expressed the view that where a statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional it is as if it had never been. I am unable to accept the proposition so widely stated. Even American text book writers have felt that the statement of (1) ; ; 665 Field J. needs to be somewhat qualified. (See	 Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States	 Volume 1	 page 11 and Willis on Constitutional Law	 page 890). The dictum	 it will be observed	 related to a statute which was made after the commencement of the Constitution and which was in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. It cannot obviously apply to a case where a statute which was enacted before the commencement of the Constitution is declared to have become unconstitutional and void. In such a situation it cannot be said that the judicial declaration means that such a statute is void for all purposes including past transactions that took place before the commencement of the Constitution. The Bombay Act was an existing law and the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) cannot and does not affect anything done under the Act prior to the commencement of the Constitution. It will be further noticed that the decision in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) does not declare the entire Act or even the entire section 13(b) to be void. It only declares void a part of section 13(b)	 that is to say only that part of it which prohibits a citizen from consuming or using only liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol. The section	 in its entirety	 is still enforceable against all noncitizens. Even as against citizens the prohibition of the section with respect to the consumption or use of the earlier categories of liquor	 namely	 "spirits of wine	 denatured spirits	 wine	 beer	 toddy" ' is fully operative. Moreover	 even the prohibition against consumption or use of the last category of liquor	 namely	 "all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol" remains operative even as against citizens except in so far as it prohibits them from consuming or using liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol. In such a situation the passages from Cooley on Constitutional Limitations and the dictum of Field J. can have no application. This is put beyond controversy by the decision of this Court in Keshava Madhava Menon vs The State of Bombay (supra). The Bombay Act being an existing law	 the declaration made by 666 this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) must be taken to have been made under article 13(1). The article does not in terms make the existing laws which are inconsistent with the fundamental rights void ab initio or for all purposes. The declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 as I understand it	 is that the prohibition contained in section 13(b) against the consumption or use of one particular variety of liquid Consisting of or containing alcohol	 namely	 liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol imposes an unreasonable restriction on the exercise of a citizen 's fundamental right under article 19(1) (f) and is	 therefore	 unconstitutional and as such void to that extent. The result of it is that the prohibi tion of that part of section 13(b) will be ineffective against and inapplicable to a citizen who consumes or uses liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol. No part of the section is obliterated or scratched out from the statute book or in any way altered or amended	 for that is not the function of the Court. The judicial declaration that a art of the section is unconstitutional and void only nullifies that offending Part in the sense that it renders that part ineffective against and inapplicable to a citizen who consumes or uses liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol in exercise of his fundamental right. In other words	 when a citizen is charged with an offence under section 66(b) read with section 13(b) he will be entitled to say "I am a citizen of India. I have consumed or used liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol. I am entitled to do so under article 19(1) (f). The Supreme Court has in The State	 of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) declared the law	 namely	 that in such cir cumstances the prohibition of section 13(b) is void as against me with respect to such consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol " This plea	 if substantiated	 will be a complete answer to the charge. In short	 the judicial declaration serves to provide a defence to a citizen who has consumed or used liquid medicinal or toilet preparations 667 containing alcohol. Test the matter in this way. Suppose after the declaration a person is charged with an offence under section 66(b) read with section 13(b) and in such a case the prosecution proves that the accused has taken alcohol in some form or other	 as is the evidence of the doctor in the present case. What is to happen if nothing further is proved by either party ? Surely	 in such a situation a conviction must follow. If the accused person desires to avail himself of the benefit of the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 surely he must prove first of all that he is a citizen. The onus of this clearly lies on the accused. The next question is whether that is the only onus that lies on the accused. To my mind he has to allege and prove not only that he is a citizen but that he has consumed or used liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol and it is only on such proof that he can claim the benefit of the declaration of law made in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) and establish his defence. The very basis of that declaration is that a citizen has the fundamental right to consume or use liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol and section 13(b) in so far as it prohibits such consumption or use imposes an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right under article 19(1) (f). In other words	 the on us is on him to establish the situation or circumstances in which that part of the section which has been declared to be void should not be applicable to him. If he establishes the fact that he is a citizen and that he has consumed or used such liquid	 then the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) will establish the law	 namely	 that the prohibition of section 13(b) and the penalty under section 66(b) are not applicable to him being inconsistent with his fundamental right. To say that after the judicial pronouncement the section should be read qua a citizen as if liquid medicinal or toilet preparations are not there or that the ambit of the offence has narrowed down to a prohibition against the consumption or use of only the earlier categories of liquor set forth in the definition is	 to my mind	 868 tantamount to saying	 covertly if not openly 	 that the judicial pronouncement has to that extent amended the section. To say that after the declaration the offence has become limited to the consumption or use of prohibited liquor is to alter or amend the definition of liquor although it has been held to be valid. I repeat that it is not within the competence of a Court to alter or amend a statute and that the effect of the declaration made by this Court in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) is not to lift or take away or add anything out of or to the section at all. What it does is to declare	 as a matter of law	 that in a certain situation	 namely	 when liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol are consumed or used	 a certain part of section 13(b)	 that is to say	 that part of it which prohibits the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 shall be void qua a particular class of persons	 namely	 citizens. In other words	 the declaration in The State Of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) serves to provide a defence only to a citizen who has consumed or used liquid medicinal or toilet preparations. It is for the accused person	 who seeks to ward off the applicability of the section to him by having resort to the declaration made in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra)	 to establish the situations or circumstances on which that declaration is founded. In short a person who challenges the validity of the section on the ground of its unconstitutionality has the advantage of the declaration as a matter of law but the facts on which that declaration is based have nevertheless to be established in each particular case where the declaration is sought to be availed of. I answer the question referred to us accordingly. It has been strenuously urged before us	 as before the Division Bench	 that such a view as to the effect of this Court 's declaration will run counter to the well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the onus of establishing the charge is always on the prosecution	 for it will throw the burden of proof on the accused person. This argument has considerably impressed Bhagwati J. and has also weighed with my 669 learned colleagues on the present Bench. It is	 however	 not unusual in certain classes of cases or in certain circumstances to throw the onus of proof of a defence on the accused person. Section 105 of the Evidence Act is an instance in point. Section 114	 ill. (a) of the same Act is another provision to which reference may be made. Section 103 of this very Bombay Prohibition Act raises a very strong presumption of guilt and throws the burden on the accused to prove his innocence in certain cases. Take section 96 of the Indian	 Penal Code which says " Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. " Nobody will contend that this section requires the prosecution to prove that the acts constituting the offence charged against the accused were not done in the exercise of the right of private defence. It is obvious that this section serves to provide the accused person with a defence and if the accused person can prove that he did the acts complained of in defence of his person or property and if the acts were reasonable in the circumstances of the case he establishes his defence. It is not necessary to multiply instances. It seems to me that the declaration in The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara (supra) gives a citizen who has consumed or used liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol a defence to a charge under section 66(b) read with section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act	 but it is for the accused person to prove the facts on which that declaration of law is founded. I see no hardship whatever in this	 for the requisite facts are within his special knowledge. To adopt the contrary view will be to ignore the sound principle well established in law that a judicial declaration of invalidity does not repeal	 alter or amend a statute. As I hold that the declaration does not operate as an amendment of the section	 I must logically hold	 'with respect to the view of Jagannadhadas J. that the declaration cannot be treated as having grafted an exception or proviso to section 13(b). 86 670 In coming to the conclusion that I have	 I have in a large measure found myself in agreement with the views of Venkatarama Ayyar J. on that part of the ' case. 1	 however	 desire to guard myself against being understood to agree with the rest of the observations to be found in his judgment	 particularly those relating to waiver of unconstitutionality	 the fundamental rights being a mere check on legislative power or the effect of the declaration under article 13(1) being "relatively void. " On those topics prefer to express no opinion on this occasion. BY THE COURT. The reference is answered in accordance with the opinion of the majority. [After the opinion of the Constitution Bench the following Order	 dated 24th September	 1954	 was pronounced by a Bench composed of Bhagwati	 Jagannadhadas and Venkatarama Ayyar JJ. who had originally heard the appeal.] The Order of the Court was pronounced by BHAGWATI J. We have received the opinion expressed by the Constitution Bench. According to that opinion	 which is expressed in the majority judgment	 the onus lay on the prosecution to prove that the alcohol of which the accused was smelling was such that it came within the category of prohibited alcohols. We have heard the learned Attorney General on the question whether that onus has been discharged and he has frankly conceded that on the material placed before us it cannot be urged that that onus has been discharged by the prosecution. The result	 therefore	 is that the conviction of the appellant will be quashed and the fine	 if paid	 will be refunded. Conviction set aside.

Summary:
Held (Per MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J.	 MUKHERJEA	 VIVIAN BOSE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.	 section R. DAS J. dissenting) that the effect of the declaration in the case of The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara(1) that clause (b) of section 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act (XXV of 1949) is void under article 13(1) of the Constitution in so far as it affects the consumption or use of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol	 is to render part of section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act inoperative	 ineffective and ineffectual and thus unenforceable. In view of the constitutional invalidity of a part of section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act having been declared void by the Supreme Court	 that part of the section ceased to have legal effect in judging cases of citizens and must be regarded as null and void in determining whether a citizen was guilty of an offence. The clear enactment of article 141 of the Constitution leaves no scope in India for the application of the American doctrine that "the declaration by a court of unconstitutionality of a statute which is in conflict with the Constitution affects the parties only and there is no judgment against the statute and it does not strike the statute from the statute book. " In India	 on the other hand	 once a law has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court	 no notice can be taken of it by any Court because after it is declared as unconstitutional it is no longer law and is null and void. The bare circumstance that a citizen accused of an offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act is smelling of alcohol is compatible both with his innocence as well as his guilt. The smell of alcohol may be due to the fact that the accused had contravened the enforceable part of section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act or it may well be due to the fact that he had taken alcohol which fell under the unenforceable and inoperative part of the section. Therefore the onus was laid on the prosecution to prove that the (I) ; 79 614 alcohol of which he was smelling came under the category of prohibited alcohol within the meaning of the enforceable part of section 13(b). Per section R. DAS J. : The declaration in the case of The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara gives a citizen who has consumed or used liquid medicinal or toilet preparations a defence to a charge under section 66(b) read with section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and it is for the accused person to prove the facts on which that declaration of law is based. The State of Bombay and Another vs F. N. Balsara ([1951] S.C.R. 682) explained. Kesava Madhava Menon vs The State of Bombay ([1951] S.C.R. 228) followed. rangarao Bala Maize vs The State ([19511 54 Bom. L. R. 325)	 In re Kanakasabai Pillai (A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 1) and Norton vs Shelby County ; referred to.