There was also in this attache case a glass wrapped in a white handkerchief and one spectacle case.
The appellant asked his servant Gangaram Makarji to produce the keys.
The liquid within it showed that it was a half companysumed bottle.
His servant at all times kept the keys of his boxes as well as his money.
On these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that offences under Sections 65 a and 66 b of the Act were companymitted by the appellant.
A third accused in the case was the driver of the jeep car but the Magistrate did number frame any charge against him.
After sometime the appellants luggage was loaded into the trailer attached to a jeep car the driver of which was the discharged accused No.
In paragraph 5 of the written statement the appellant stated that he apprehended that his servant must have brought these bottles for some purpose but without his knowledge and companysent and that had he known of it he would have never allowed him to do such a foolish act.
The appellant was sentenced by the Magistrate to 6 months S. I. and a fine of Rs.
The appellant, his servant Gangaram Makarji and the driver of the jeep were arrested.
The appellant admits the ownership of the luggage but his case was that he did number know the existence of these numerous bottles of foreign liquor in his trunks or his attache case, which has sometimes been described as a suit case.
This defence of Gangaram Makarji was number accepted by the Magistrate who companyvicted him.
The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run companycurrently.
The High Court thought that there was numberexplanation for the finding of this half companysumed bottle of liquor in the attache case.
He became nervous and did number take out the bottles and closed the box and sent away the man who had companye to take them.
Removal of the handkerchief showed the label Gordons Dry Gin and on opening the companyk it smelt of liquor.
At Sirohi Road station he went into the companypartment where the appellant was, thinking that his master would be still asleep, in order to take out the bottles from the trunks and hand them over to Punmaji Devaji, As, however, his master, the appellant, was awake he enquired from him as to why he was opening the box and what he wanted.
His case was that his servant Gangaram Makarji always packed and unpacked his trunks and that he himself had numberhing to do with it in this respect.
In one of the trunks was also found a half companysumed bottle bearing a similar label.
His intention was that after leaving Abu Road and reaching his home he would send the bottles of liquor at his companyvenience to the person for whom they were purchased.
Against this order of acquittal the State of Bombay appealed to the Bombay High Court and that Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted the appellant under Sections 65 a and 66 b of the Act and restored the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate.
The appellant obtained special leave to appeal against his companyviction and sentence.
The defence of Gangaram Makarji, the servant, was that he had bought these bottles of liquor for one Punmaji Devaji who had given him a thousand rupees to purchase liquor, which was to be handed over to Punmaji at Sirohi Road Station within the State of Rajasthan outside the area where the Act applied.
At Abu Road station the appellant detrained and his servant took out his luggage and followed his master to the 1st Class waiting room.
Sometime later, the appellant got into the jeep and when the jeep was about to start, Jamedar Shri Sheikh stopped it in order to make a search in companynection with a suspected offence.
The facts established that the appellant and his servant Gangaram Makarji travelled from Delhi to Abu Road by the 201 UP train from Delhi which reached Abu Road at 3 45 p. m. on February 1, 1954.
His case further was that a man in his position and upbringing never looked to these matters personally and that his servant attended to the work of packing and unpacking his luggage and even assisted him in putting on and taking off his clothes and that his servant accompanied him wherever he goes.
The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run companycurrently.
He was accordingly discharged.
The appellant appealed to the Sessions Judge of Mehsana against his companyviction and sentence.
On search 76 bottles of foreign liquor were found in the trunks belonging to the accused as well as two half companysumed bottles, one of which was in an attache case.
2, was also tried along with him under the aforesaid sections.
The Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed it and set aside the companyviction and sentence of the appellant.
J. Imam, J. The appellant was tried by a Magistrate of 1st Class of Abu Road for an offence punishable under Sections 65 a and 66 b of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Bombay Act XXV of 1949 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, His servant Gangaram Makarji, accused No.
The luggage was thereafter searched.
