SRI CHAND BATRA versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 19-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
II 
SRI CHAND BATRA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
Dtcember 19, 1973 
[M. H. Beo AND Y. v. CiiANDR,ACHUD, JJ.] 
821 
U,f', Excise Act-1, 60(a)-Whtther sm1llln1 test tnougfi to /ustlfl co11cluslo11 
tlwt the liquid was ifliclt liquor-Wlittl1er oplnlo11 of the Inspector opinion 
ti·l~ 
dc•nct under s. 45 of 1ht Evidence Act. 
' 
· The nppellant was found ·preparina illicit liquor when the raldina excise J>&rty 
!'icarcheJ the room in which he was.present. The appellant pleaded that he bad 
no <;:oncern with the bungalow searched and that he was not present when the 
search was taken nnd that he was falsely implicated in the co.se. 
All the materials 
found in the room were seized. The Excise Inspector had tested the contents of 
the drums with the aid of litmus paper, hydrometer, and thermC'lnteter and did not 
confine himself to smellini the contents of the drums. The appellant was con· 
'ictcd by the trial court under s. 60(a). U.P. Excise Act, 1.910 tur preparln1 illicit 
Jiquor and was sentenced to imprisonment and fine. His conviction and aentence 
were confirm::d both by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. 
Th!i! questions raised in this Court were (i) whether the smelling: test en1ploycd 
by the Excise Inspector to,Qether with other circumstances were enough to justify 
the condusion that the liquid recovered was illicit liquor of O.P. stren~b and (ii) 
whether the Excise Inspector could be considered an expert whose optnion about 
the nature of ihe ·liquor found Was. i.>pinion evidence under s. 45 of the Evidence 
Act. 
Disn1issina the ap{'eal, 
HELD : (i} It is not desirable to lay down an intlexible rule 'On questions of 
fact even thouah their determination reguires the adoption of scientiHc methods 
and tests. It is really for the court of fact to decide whether, .upon a considera.· 
tion of the totality of the facts in a case, lt has been satisfactorily established that 
the objecu recovered from the possession of the accused included liquor of prohi· 
bitell strenath Hydrometer test would be enougb. if the liquid was known to con· 
tain alcohol becnuse it would help to determine the strength of alcoholic contents. 
1"25 DI 
In 1he instant cr.se the false defence taken, that the appellant was not pre$ent 
at the house in question when it was searched, could indicate that he wanted to 
keep his <listance from the recoveries made as he was aware of their incriminating 
nature. Secondly, the appellant who was an employee in a liquor shop, could 
not be so ignorant about the nature of the liquid recovered as not to be able to 
raise the question before the trial court that the liquid under consideration was 
not "'liquor" as defined in the Act. There was no reason why the accused, who 
could be presumed to havi: enough knowledge about tbe composition and strength 
of the prohibited liquor, could not raise this question in the trial court so that the 
pro~c~ution might cure whatever wC:a~ness there 1night be in the evidence on that 
point. The Excise Inspector was cross·examined at considerable length but the 
whole of it was directed at showing that the recoveries were not made from the 
posse~sion of the appellant. No question wru; put to him lo cross-examination to 
suggest that the appellant questioned the composition or strensth of th~ liquid 
recovered as alcohol of prohibited strength or the competence of the Excise Ins· 
pector to give his conclusion on the strength of tests adopted by him. The appel .. 
lant should not be allowed to raise it at a stage when it may be difficult or impos-
sible to adopt a conclusive test. The objects recovered from the p01se1sion·or the 
appellant almost proclaim the nature of his activity and of the liquid which could 
be in bis possession. 
(ii) The competence of the Excise Inspector to test the composition and 
strenath of the liquid waa not questioned at all. Nor waa hia competence qllfl· 
tioned to •ive hia conclusion on the otrenath of the tests adopted by him. No 
defence evuience was Jed to indicate that the liquid could be anythln1 else. 
[826AJ 
. 
822 
SUPllBMB COURT REPORTS 
[19741 2 s.c.a. 
In the iiutant case, tho qu•tlon of admiuibllhy of the opinion o! tho lllclle 
A 
Inspector wu, however, not raised before th• S.Uiom Judp. The Excise lmpec· 
tor had depo1ed that he had put Jn 21 years' service u Exclle I"'pector and bAd 
tested lakhs of samples of liquor and llliclt liquor. On the tacts of this cue 
this particular Exci10 Inspector could bo tr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.