This part of the statement of the witness was disbelieved by the trial Magistrate and by the Sessions Judge.
3600 as excise duty to the Bhopal State.
In his opinion the liquid analysed was fit for use as intoxicating liquor and that it was number a standard preparation, though he companyld number say whether it was a medicinal preparation, he having numbermeans of examining the other active ingredients.
The Magistrate companyvicted the first respondent of offences under 88.
65 a read with 8.
On July 29, 1955, Sub Inspector Shintre stopped the motor truck at Dohad a. town in the State of Bombay The motor truck on examination was found carrying 7073 bottles of various sizes labelled Mrugmadasav, Rajkumar Laboratories, Sehore.
He also stated that in about 6 1/2 seers of Mrugmadasav prepared according to the Ayurvedic formula there would be 20 tolas of musk and that the current market rate of musk was Rs.
A motor truck belonging to the second respondent was engaged for transporting the preparation from Sehore to Ahmedabad.
The Rajkumar Laboratories prepared the drug and as it companytained rectified spirit, paid Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 9, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
Respondents 1 and 2 who were accompanying the motor truck in a jeep in which also bottles of Mrugmadasav were found, were arrested.
81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and four other accused with whom we are number companycerned in this appeal, of certain offences.
Against the order of acquittal the State of Bombay has preferred this appeal with special leave.
80 per tola.
Nur ud din Ahmed and Naunit Lal, for respondent No.
on the label was also printed the legend that the preparation companytained 85.5 alcohol.
A permit authorising export of the preparation out of the Limits of Bhopal State was also obtained on July 28, 1955.
The respondents and eight others were then prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dohad, State of Bombay for offences punishable under SS 65 a and 66 1 b of the Bombay Prohibition Act XXV of 1949.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, R. L. Iyengar and T.M. Sen, for the appellant.
65 of 1959.
60 to Rs.
Samples of the companytents of the bottles were drawn and companylected in the presence of Panchas and were sent to the Assistant Chemist, Drugs and Excise Laboratory, Baroda, for analysis and report.
65 a and 66 1 b , the second respondent of offences under 8.
The respondents are residents of Sehore a town in what was at the material time the territory of the State of Bhopal.
Prabhat Trading Company a firm carrying on business at Ahmedabad in the State of Bombay placed an order on January 26, 1955, with the Rajkumar Laboratories, for 4800 bottles of Mrugmadasav an Ayurvedic preparation.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
To a question asked in cross examination, the witness stated that in his presence 50 tolas of rectified spirit were added to 4 tolas of musk and 2 tolas each of black pepper, jaifal, pipal and cinnamon.
P. Parikh, Assistant Chemist, Drugs Excise Laboratory, Baroda, stated that on analysis, the samples were found to companytain 75.55 to 79.97 V V ethyl alcohol and that in his opinion companytents of the bottles were number an Asav preparation.
Samples were also sent to the Principal of R. A. Poddar Ayurvedic companylege at Bombay.
M. Y. Lele Principal of R. A. Podar Ayurvedic College, stated that the principal companystituent of Mrugmadasav is musk Mrugmad , which has a characteristic and penetrating odour, and that he companyld number get any odour of musk out of the sample sent to him and that, in his opinion, the companytents of the bottles were number Mrugmadasav at all.
Respondent 1 is the brother of the owner of a companycern which carries on business of manufacturing drugs, in the name and style of Rajkumar Laboratories, Sehore.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, acquitting the respondents of offences punishable under ss.
1485 of 1958.
It was the Case for the State that the bottles seized by the police, though labelled Mrugmadasav, which is an Ayurvedic preparation indicated foruse in delirious fever and cholera, did number companytain genuine Mrugmadasav but companytained intoxicating liquor, import, transportation and possession whereof without a permit or licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act were prohibited.
October 6.
65 a 1 and 66 b 1 of the Bombay Prohibition Act XXV of 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Sessions Judge agreed with the Magistrate.
