LexVIJAY SINGH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
358
VDAY SINGH
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
March 12, 1965
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND R; S .. BACHAWAT; JJ.J
Bomba11 Prohibition Act, 1949
25 of 1949),
_24A, 66 and.
85(1)-Medicinal. Preparation containing alcohol-Drinking not fOT'
intoxication-Burden of proof.
The appellant, drove a jeep at an excessive speed and dashed1
against a wall. In. the jeep was also a bottle_ with a label on it as
"Tinctur(' Zingeberis". On medical exam1nat1on the appellant \vas
found to l:e intoxicated. He was prosecuted under ss. 6il(ll(b) and.
85(1)(1), (2) an.1 (:l) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949; the Magis-
trate conv'.cted him under the aforesaid sections and sentenced him
under ss. 66(l)(b) and 85(1) of the Act. On appeal the Sessions Judge
acquitted the appellant under s. 66(l)(b) but confirmed the sentence·
under s. 8(,(l )(1 ). The respondent filed an appeal against the acquittal
and the appellant filed a revision against the conviction, which the
High Court heard together and allowed the respondent's appeal··and
dismissed the revision of the appellant. In appeal by certificate;
HELD . Whatever meaning may be given to the expression
"drunk", in this case there was clear evidence that the 3ppellant had
taken the drink for the purpose of intoxication and not for medication
and that under the influenee of drink he had rashly driven his Jeep.
He was drunk and was, therefore, .incapable of taking care of him-
self. (363 G]
If a persoTl consumes liquor, i.e. any liquid consisting of or
taining akohol. he commits an offence under s. 66(1) of the Act and,
therefore, is liable to be convicted thereunder. But by reason of s ..
24A(2) of the Act, if it is established that the liquor consumed is con-
tained in any rnedieinal preparation which is unfit for use as intoxicat-
ing l'quor, the consumption of such liquor is not an o!Ience under the
Act, for the Act itself does not apply to such medicinal preparation.
[360 B, CJ
In terms of s. 66(2) of the Act, the burden of proving that the.
liquor cons111ned vvas a medicinal preparation
alcohol, the
cnnsumpti 1Jn of ¥:hich \Vas not in contravention of the Act etc., or the
rules made thereunder, shifted to the accused. (361 E]
In this case not only the accused failed to discharge the burden
so sh'fted to him by the statute; but the prosecution had also
lished that the said medicinal preparation was fit for use as an intoxi-
cating liquor. (361 GJ
State of Bomba11 (Now Gujarat) v. Naraindas Mangila! Agarwal,
(1962] Supp, 1 S.C.R. 15, held inapplicable.
CFJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 154
of 1963.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 2, 1961 of the
Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur in Criminal
Appeal No. 234 of 1962. ·
M. N. Phfldke and Naunit Lal, for the appellant..
0. P. Rana, B. R. G. K. Achar and R. H. Dhebar, for the res-
pondent.
A
B
0
D
E
F
G
H
VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Subba Rao, J.)
359
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Subba Rao, J. This appeal by certificate issued by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay raises the
construc-
tion of some of the provisions of the Bombay Proh1b11ion Act, 1949,
hereinafter called the Act .
'
On June 12, 1961, Vijaysingh, the appellant, and one Namdeo
Shinde drove in a jeep at an excessive speed and dashed it against
the wall of the office of the District Superintendent of Police. Alcola.
Both of them appeared to be intoxicated. In the jeep there was also
a bottle with a label on it as "Tincture Zingeberis". Vijaysingh was
prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alcola, under
s. 66(1)(b) and s. 85(1) (!), (2), and (3) of the Act. The said Magis-
trate convicted the appellant both under s. 66(l)(b) and s. 8511)(1),
(2) and (3) of the Act, but sentenced him only under ss. 66(!)\b) and
85(1)(!) of the Act. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Alcola,
acquitted the appellant under s. 66(!)(b) of the Act, but confirmed
the conviction and sentence under s. 85(1)(1) thereof. Against the
judgment of the Sessions Judge acquitting the appellant under
s. 66{l)(b) of the Act the State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal
to the High Court; and against the order of conviction under s. 35(])
(!) of the Act the appellant preferred a revision to the High Court.
The High Court heard both. the matters together and allowed the
appeal filed by the State and dismissed the revision petition preferExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.