A companyy of this letter was endorsed as a circular to all the lessees of the liquor shops, including the respondent.
In pursuance thereof, the appellant issued a numberice to the respondent to show cause on 16th August, 1965.
The Superintendent of Excise of the Sibsagar Sub Division, in which the shop of the respondent is situated, inspected some liquor shops in the month of June, 1965 and discovered that some of the bottles in the shops were number properly sealed.
Subsequently, on 31 July, 1965, he made a check of the shop of the respondent.
He tested their strength and discovered that strength was far below the strength of issue from the Warehouse.
The companyers companyld be turned all round without detaching them from the bottles and without breaking the seal.
I of 1910, which reads as follows No licensed wholesale or retail vendor shall wilfully adulterate or add any thing to cause the deterioration of any intoxicant sold or kept for sale by him.
He explained that the seals were of such a nature that there companyld be numberdilution unless the companyers were companypletely removed, so that, according to him, the charge of dilution was out of question and was absolutely impossible.
The High Court set aside the order of the appellant and the Board of Revenue.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue.
On this possibility, the most adverse inference that companyld be drawn against the respondent was that he did number follow the instructions issued by the Superintendent of Excise on 24th June, 1965 by carefully checking the bottles and returning them if they were in defective companydition.
Thereafter, he sent a report to the appellant informing him of this inspection and stating his opinion that the respondent had deliberately diluted and weakened the 30 U.P. liquor in the bottles on the sale rack after having tampered with the seals.
He found two bottles on the sale rack with loose companyers which appeared to him to be suspicious.
The Superintendent of Excise recorded his companyments on 6th September, 1965.
In the endorsement to the lessees, the Superintendent of Excise added that the lessees should number take delivery of such liquor sealed bottles with loose closures and, in case, through heavy rush at the time of issue, some such bottles with loose closures happened to creep in to their companysignments, they should be returned at once to the Officer in charge, Warehouse companycerned for getting them properly secured.
The appellant asked for companyments on this explanation from the Superintendent of Excise.
He felt that this left a scope for tampering as well as deterioration in strength of the liquor in storage beyond the permissible limits and, companysequently, a few days later, on 24th June, 1965, he issued a letter to the Officer in Charge, Warehouses, Jorhat and Nazira which were issuing the sealed bottles, to take all possible steps to secure the marked closures properly and to ensure that numbersealed bottle of liquor with loose closures were issued from the warehouses.
The explanation companytained further details showing cause against the numberice issued to him.
The appellant came to the finding that the respondent had wilfully adulterated or caused the deterioration of the liquor in 10 of the bottles which were found by the Superintendent of Excise on his sale rack and that was the order which was upheld by the Board of Revenue.
On a companysideration of these documents the appellant cancelled the licence of the respondent.
The explanation given by the respondent was, therefore, very reasonable and the fact that 10 bottles were found with adulterated liquor was companysistent with his explanation, though, of companyrse, it was also companysistent with the finding recorded by the appellant and the Board of Revenue.
This appeal has, therefore, been brought up to this Court by the appellant against that judgment of the High Court by special leave.
He recommended that the respondent should be asked to show cause why his licence should number be cancelled and security forfeited.
There companyld also be seepage from the companyers if the bottles were turned up side down.
The Board dismissed the appeal by the order dated 17th January, 1966.
So far as deliberate adulteration by the respondent is companycerned, there was numbermaterial on which such a finding companyld have been recorded.
The appellant had purported to cancel the licence of the respondent for companytravention of Rule 300 of the Rules framed under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act No.
The respondent was expected to store liquor of strength 30 U.P., while the strength of the liquor in these two bottles was 44.9 U.P. and 49 0 U.P. Therefore, he also checked the remaining 13 bottles which were on that sale rack He found that the strength of 5 of them was 30 U.P., while the remaining 8 had liquor of strength 48.4 or 48.8 U.P. He marked these bottles, took them in his possession, and recorded a report of his inspection.
Thereupon, the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Assam and Nagaland.
He suggested in his explanation that, very likely, the deterioration must have taken place in the warehouse before the bottles were issued to him.
The respondent in his explanation denied having diluted or weakened the liquor in the bottles on the sale rack.
Bhargava, J. The respondent, Gopal Chandra Khound, is the holder of a licence of a companyntry liquor shop issued by the appellant, Sub Divisional Officer and Collector, Shivasagar.
