Appellant No.
The Presidency Magistrate was satisfied that a working still and illicit liquor in the glass jars and the two bottles were found in the premises in question.
411 of 1959 arising out of the judgment and order dated March 17, 1959, of the Presidency Magistrate XX Court, Mazagaon, Bombay in Case Nos.
1 was holding a rubber tube attached to the tank.
Nur ud din Ahmed and R. H. Dhebar, for the Respondent.
There were also 11 wooden barrels companytaining wash.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 19 and 20, 1959, of the former Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
M. Mistri, Ravinder Narain, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra for the Appellants.
The High Court also was of the opinion that a working still was found there but it thought that it would number be safe to rely upon the companyflicting and unsatisfactory evidence in the case to hold that illicit liquor had been found in the premises in question, as it had number been satisfactorily proved that the bottles and the glass jars had been sealed in the presence of the panchas.
It was the case of the prosecution that the appellants were manufacturing illicit liquor and were in possession of a still and other materials for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicant and were also in possession of illicit liquor.
November 18.
1 on the third floor of Dhun Mansion, Khetwadi 12th Lane.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J. The appellants were companyvicted under ss.
No separate sentence was imposed under the other sections.
The, boiler companytained four gallons of wash.
The High Court was further of the opinion that there was numberevidence on the record to show that the very bottles which were attached and the sample bottles in which was companytained the wash were the bottles which were examined by the Chemical Examiner in respect of which he made a report to the Magistrate.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant No.
Below the boiler there was a stove which was burning.
1,000 under s. 65 b .
There was also a big jar near the still.
Another glass jar was used as a receiver which, according to the prosecution, also companytained 20 drams of illicit liquor.
It was further argued that numberquestions were put to the accused, when they were examined under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in this companynection and therefore they had been denied the opportunity to rebut the presumption.
65 b , 65 f and 66 b of the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the Presidency Magistrate XX Court, Mazagaon, Bombay.
124 of 1959.
They appealed to the Bombay High Court against their companyvictions and sentence.
According to the prosecution, this big jar companytained illicit liquor.
A panchnama was drawn up companycerning the recovery of these articles.
1 was sentenced to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
1952 54/P of 1958.
No separate sentence was imposed under the other sections.
2 was pumping air into the cylinder with a motor pump while appellant No.
In the drawing room of the premises a small glass jar companytaining 20 drams of illicit liquor, a bottle of 1 1/2 drams of illicit liquor and a pint bottle companytaining 3 drams of illicit liquor were also found.
Appellant No.
A companyplete working still was found there and both the appellants were working it.
An iron stand with a boiler on it was also found there.
