LexKEKI BEJONJI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 515 heard. From that point of view the provisions of r96o s. 421 had not been complied with. It is sufficient to Pratap Singh say that if the order dated Octobe.r 28, 1955, dismis- v. sing the appellant's appeal under s. 420 was lawful, The State of a second appeal from the same judgment of convic- Vindhya Pradesh tion presented through a pleader was not maintain- (Now Madhya able because the previous order of the High Court Pradesh) dismissing the appeal was final under s. 430 of the Imam J. Code of Criminal Procedure. Certain cases were relied upon to which reference has been made by the Judicial Commissioner. Those cases can be distin- guished from the present case. In none of them was it decided that where an order dismissing the appeal is lawful a subsequent appeal filed through a pleader was maintainable. In our opinion, there is no sub- stance in this point, once it is held that the order dated October 28, 1955, was a lawful order which, we think, it was, as in our opinion the proviso to s. 421 in no way offends against the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The appeal is accordingly dis- missed. Appeal dismissed. KEKI BEJONJI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY. (JAFER IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Search-Recovery of articles-Denial of -all knowledge of articles recovered-No questions put on articles re- covered-accused, if prejudiced-Presumption-Servant in premises of master-Whether in possession of master's goods-·Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, z898_(V of I898), s. 34z-Bombay Prohibition Act, I949 (Bom. z5 of z949), ss. 65(b), 65(f), 66(b). During the search of the premises of the appellant No. I a complete working still was found which was being worked by the appellant No. I and his servant, appellant No. 2. The Presidency Magistrate was satisfied that a working still and November z8. 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] I960 illicit liquor were found. The appellant No. l was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he volun- Keki Bcjonji and teered the statement that he did not know anything of the con- Another traband seized by the police; so no specific question about the v. still and other articles recovered from his premises were put by Th• Stats of the Presidency Magistrate who convicted the appellants under Bombay ss. 65(b), 65(1) & 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, relying on the facts of the recovery of still and illicit liquor and did not use the provision of s. 103 for presumption against the appel- lants. The appellants on appeal by special leave contended, (1) that no presumption under s. 103 of the Act could arise; and that he had been denied the opportunity to rebut the presump- tion under s. 103 of the Act, as no questions were put to them when they were examined nnder s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (3) that as the Magistrate had not nsed the provision of s. 103 for presumption against the appellants, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellants on the presumption arising under s. 103 of the Act without giving them an opportu- nity to rebut the same. On behalf of appellant No. 2 it was further urged that he was merely a servant of appellant No. l; if any one was in possession of the still it was appellant No. l and no presump- tion against him could arise under s. 103 of the Act. Held, that when an accused is examined under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and volunteers statement denying all knowledge of articles recovered from his possession, no pre- judice is caused to him if no further questions are put to ex- plain the possession of articles found in the premises occupied by him. The presumption which arises under s. 103 of the Bombay Prohibition Act is that an offence under the Act is committed when a person is found in mere possession, without further eVi- dence, of any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the manufacture of such intoxicant until contrary is proved. Thus no prejudice was caused to the appellant No. l when the High Court relied upon the presumption arising nnder s. 103 of the Act to uphold his conviction under s. 65(f) of the Act. Held, further, that it cannot be said of merely an employee in the premises that he was in physical possession of the things belonging to his master unless they were left in his custody. Where an offence under s. 65(1) of the Bom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.