STATE OF GUJARAT versus CHINUBHAI GOPALDAS

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 13-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
CHJNUBHAI GOPALDAS 
March 13, 1968 
B 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND 
c 
D 
E 
F 
A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Bombay Prohibition Act, ss. 66(b) and 98-Acquittal of person 
charged with offence under s. 66( b )-Properly in respect of which 
offeirce committed may still be confisccted under s. 98. 
A stock of bottles apparently containin~ cosmetic preparations was 
iound from the possession of the respondent On analysis 
the bottles 
which were taken as samples were found to eo'htain alcohol and as the 
respondent did not have any licence for possessiitg alcohol he was pro-
llOCUled under s. 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The trying Magis-
trate acquitted him on the ground that he did not hold the bottles on his 
own but only as the agent of a wholesale dealer who acknowledged his 
ownership. 
While acquitting the respondent the Magistrate ordered the 
confiscation of the remaining bottles under s. 98 of the Prohibition Act. 
The respondent went to the High Court against the order of confiscation. 
The learned Single Judge ordered return of the bottles because according 
to him it was not proved that the 1500 and odd other bottles also con-
tained intoxicants. and therefore the order under s. 98 of the Act y:as 
illegal. 
The State appealed, 
HELD : U oder s. 98 what has to be seen is whether an offence under 
the Prohibition Act in respect of the property in que5tion has been com· 
milted or no~ An offence may be demonstrated to ·be committed 
although the accused who committed it may not be successfully prosecut-
ed. 
On proof that there is a contraband artic1e in respect of which an 
offence has been committed the obvious course is to confiscate it to tbc 
State. 
Therefore in the prcsont case if the court was satisfied that lhe 
bottles contained contraband article the bottles could be confiscated. 
[449 C-EJ 
. 
[Order of the High Court set aside \\ith the direction that a 
few 
bottles at random should be analysed and if contraband stuff against the 
prohibition act was found the whole stock should be confiscated.] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
162 of 1965. 
G 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 8, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 345 of 1964, 
Urmi/a Kapur and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
The .respondent did not appear. 
H 
The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by 
Hidayatwllah C.J. This is an appeal by special leave against 
the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968) 3 S.C.R. 
Court of Gujarat, January 8, 1965, by which an order confiscat: 
ing 1500 and odd bottles said to contain intoxicating liquor by 
the City Magistrate, 8th Court, Ahmedabad, has been set aside. 
The facts of the case are as follows. 
On January 9, 1963, 
Sub-Inspector, Benot of Ahmedabad City raided a godown con-
sisting of two rooms in Serial No. 1510/0 and Survey No. 324/0. 
He found several deal boxes which were opened and each ·box 
was found to contain 144 bottles packed with grass, each bottle 
containing 4 oz. of some liquid. Bottles were of two kinds, one 
containing yellow liquid and the other a red liquid. The bottles 
co11~ng ye)liOw liA,uJd were labelled 
'U. D. Colbn Solvek 
Cosmetics Bombay, 28.', and the bottles containing red liquid 
were labelled 'Jasmine Batch No. 
3. Solvek 
Cosmetics 
Bombay.' 
From these 
bottles, 
two 
bottles, 
one 
of 
each kind, were selected and were sent to the Chemical Exami-
ner. Baroda for test. Before sending them, the Panchas were 
allowed to .. seal the bottles with 
paper slips containing 
the 
si~nat~re 'of panchas pasted on them for identification. On 
anuiysi.s;.they were found to contain alcohol and the respondent 
Chinubhai Gopaldas was prosecuted under s. 66(b) 
of the 
Boinbay P,rohibition Act. 
The other bottles numbering 1584 
containing 6336 oz. of alleged alcohol were kepi intact. 
Gopal Das's pros~ution failed. 
He was acquitted by the 
City Magistrate, because according to him, it was not proved 
beyond 
reasonable doubt that he was in possession of these 
bottles on his own. It was found that he possessed them as 
agent~ of a wholesale merchant. It is in evidence however · that 
he did not po~scss a permit or licence for 
possessing alcohol. 
The Magistrate while acquitting him ordered the confiscation of 
the remaining bottles under s. 98 of the Prohibition Act. 
The State Government did not appea

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