http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: RATAN LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/10/1965

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  722            1966 SCR  (2) 142

ACT: Bombay  Prohibition Act, 1949, ss. 66(1)(b), 6A(7), 24A  and 59A--Possession of medicinal preparations containing  liquor in  excess  of  12%--Deemed unfit for  use  as  intoxicating liquor on date of attachment--Subsequently declared fit  for use by intoxicating liquor-Whether offence committed.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant was convicted of the offence under  s.  66(1) (b)  of  the  Bombay Prohibition Act,  1949,  for  being  in possession on September 21, 1960 of bottles of two different Ayurvedic  medicinal  preparations con  training  52.3%  and 54.5%  alcohol  respectively.   The  appellant’s  case  that possession   of   the  preparations  by  him  was   not   in contravention  of  the Act, because  the  preparations  were medicinal  preparations containing alcohol which were  unfit for use as intoxicating liquor within the meaning of s.  24A of  the  Act, was rejected.  The trial court held  that  the offending  articles  were Ayurvedic  preparations  in  which alcohol  was generated by a process of fermentation  and  as alcohol exceeded 12 per cent by volume, the preparations did not  correspond  with  the  limitations  prescribed  by  the provision to s. 59A, and therefore the exemption  prescribed by  s. 24A was inoperative.  The Court of Sessions  and  the High Court agreed with that view. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that even if  the  -two medicinal preparations corresponded  with  the description  and limitations under s. 59A, they  were  still preparations   fit  for  use  as  intoxicating  liquor   and therefore outside the exemption in s. 24A. HELD:     The  appellant  was  wrongly  convicted  and   his conviction must he set aside. (i)  There  was  clear  evidence  on  the  record  that  the offending  preparations  were  not  preparations  in   which alcohol  was generated by fermentation.  The proviso  to  s. 59A Would therefore have no application. [146 E-F] (ii) On  the  date on which the two  medicinal  preparations were  attached in September 1960, by vitrue  of  sub-section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

(7) of s. 6A they were deemed for the purpose of the Act  to be unfit for use as intoxicating liquor and their possession was; not an offence.  A subsequent declaration -by the State under s. 6A(6) in October, 1960, that they were fit for  use as   intoxicating  liquor,  could  not  have   retrospective operation,  and possession which was innocent could not,  by subsequent  act of the State, be declared as  offending  the statute. [150 A]  The  State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, [1951]  S.C.R.  682, referred to. The  State  of  Bombay v. Narandas Mangild  Agarwal  &  Anr. [1962] Sup.  1 S.C.R. 15, distinguished.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 53  of 1964. 143 Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated August  9, 1963 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur  Bench)  in Criminal Revision Application No. 107 of 1963. B.   Sen,  J.  B.  Dadachanji, O.  C.  Mathur  and  Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. P.   K.   Chatterjee  and  B.  R.  G.  K.  Achar,  for   the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  J.  Ratan Lal-appellant in this  appeal-is  the  pro- prietor of a business in drugs styled "Anil Medical  Stores" at  Wani, District Yeotmal in the State of Maharashtra.   On September  14, 1960 the Station House Officer, Wani,  raided the  shop  of  the appellant and seized  12  bottles  of  an Ayurvedic preparation called Mahadrakshasva manufactured  by the   Brahma   Aushadhalaya,  Nagpur  and  88   bottles   of Dashmoolarishta  manufactured  by the  Vedic  Pharmaceutical Works, Nagpur.  At a trial held before the Magistrate, First Class,  Kalapur, the appellant was convicted of the  offence punishable  under s. 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition  Act 25   of   1949,  and  was  sentenced  to   suffer   rigorous imprisonment  for  three  months and to pay a  fine  of  Rs. 500/-.   The order was confirmed in appeal by the  Court  of Session,  Yeotmal.  The High Court of Bombay  confirmed  the conviction,  but  modified  the  sentence.   The   appellant appeals to this Court, with special leave. The  following  are the material facts found  by  the  trial Court  and  confirmed by the Court of Appeal  and  the  High Court.  Mahadrakshasava  and Dashmoolarishta  are  Ayurvedic medicinal  preparations  containing  alcohol,   manufactured under  licences  granted  under  the  Medicinal  and  Toilet Preparations    (Excise    Duties)   Act   16    of    1955. Mahadrakshasava  attached  from the shop  of  the  appellant contained  52.3% alcohol v/v and  Dashmoolarishta  contained 54.5% alcohol v/v.  These preparations are manufactured by a process of distillation.  The appellant had purchased  these preparations  from a drug store in Nagpur called the  Sharda Medical  Stores  who  in their turn  were  supplied  by  the manufacturers the Brahma Aushadhalaya, Nagpur and the  Vedic Pharmaceutical Works, Nagpur. The  Bombay  Prohibition  Act 25 of 1949  by  s.  66(1)  (b) penalises contravention of the provisions of the Act, or  of any  rule,  regulation, or order made, or  of  any  licence, permit,  pass  or  authorization issued  thereunder  by  any person  who  consumes,  uses, possesses  or  transports  any intoxicant other than opium or hemp. 144

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

"Intoxicant" is defined by S. 2 (22) as meaning "any liquor, into xicating drug, opium or any other substance, which  the State  Government  may,  by  notification  in  the  Official Gazette declare to be an intoxicant.  "Liquor" is defined in S.  2(24) as including (a) spirits denatured spirits,  wine, beer,  toddy  and all liquids consisting  of  or  containing alcohol;  (b)  any other intoxicating  substance  which  the State  Government  may,  by  notification  in  the  Official Gazette,  declare to be liquor for the purposes of the  Act. Section  12 of the Act, insofar as it is material,  provides that  no person shall import, export, transport  or  possess liquor.   But  these  prohibitions are  subject  to  certain exceptions.  By S. 11 not with. Standing anything  contained in the provisions contained in Ch.  III (which includes  ss. 11  to  24-A)  it is lawful to  import,  export,  transport, manufacture,   sell,  buy,  possess,  use  or  consume   any intoxicant  to the extent provided by the provisions of  the Act  or  any  rules,  regulations  or  orders  made  or   in accordance  with  the  terms and conditions  of  a  licence, permit,  pass  or  authorization  granted  thereunder.   The prohibitions  are  also inapplicable in respect  of  certain preparations under S. 24A which provides in so far as it  is material               "Nothing  in this Chapter shall be  deemed  to               apply to               (1)   Any   toilet   preparation    containing               alcohol which is unfit for use as intoxicating               liquor;               "(2)  any  medicinal  preparation   containing               alcohol which is unfit for use as intoxicating               liquor;               (3)  any  antiseptic preparation  or  solution               containg  alcohol  which is unfit for  use  as               intoxicating liquor;               (4)   any flavouring extract, essence or syrup               containing  alcohol which is unfit for use  as               intoxicating liquor;               Provided  that such article  corresponds  with               the  description and limitations mentioned  in               section 59A :" Possession of a toilet, medicinal or antiseptic preparation, of flavouring article containing alcohol is therefore not an offence  if it is unfit for use as an  intoxicating  liquor, and  it  corresponds with the  description  and  limitations mentioned in S. 59A. The appellant did at the material time possess  preparations which contained a large percentage of alcohol, and it is not the  case  of  the  appellant that he  was  protected  by  a licence, permit,                             145 pass or authorization.  His case was that possession of  the preparations  by  him was not in contravention of  the  Act, because   the  preparations  were   medicinal   preparations containing alcohol which were unfit for use as  intoxicating liquor  within  the  meaning of s. 24A  of  the  Act.   This contention  of the appellant has been uniformly rejected  by all  the  Courts  below.  The question  which  falls  to  be determined  in  this  appeal  is  whether  the  preparations containing  alcohol  in respect of which  the  appellant  is convicted  were medicinal preparations which were unfit  for use  as  intoxicating liquor.  That  the  preparations  were medicinal  according to the Ayurvedic system is not  denied, and  it  is  common  ground  that  they  contained  alcohol. Attention  must therefore be directed to  ascertain  whether the  preparations  did correspond with the  description  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

limitations mentioned in s. 59A.  If they did not, exemption under  S. 24-A will be inoperative, even if they  are  medi- cinal  preparations.   In so far as it is material,  S.  59A which  was  added  by Act 26 of 1952 at  the  relevant  time provided :                "(1)  No manufacturer of any of the  articles               mentioned  in section 24A shall sell,  use  or               dispose  of any liquor purchased or  possessed               for the purposes of such manufacture under the               provisions  of this Act otherwise than  as  an               ingredient  of the articles authorised  to  be               manufactured therefrom.  No more alcohol shall               be  used  in  the manufacture of  any  of  the               articles  mentioned  in section 24A  than  the               quantity necessary for extraction or  solution               of the elements contained therein and for  the               preservation of the articles :               Provided  that in the case of  manufacture  of               any  of the articles mentioned in section  24A               in which the alcohol is generated by a process               of  fermentation  the amount of  such  alcohol               shall not exceed 12 per cent by volume.               (2) ........................." Sub-section  (1) directs the manufacturer not to use in  the manufacture  of any article mentioned in s. 24A  alcohol  in excess of the quantity necessary for extraction or  solution of the elements and for preservation of the article, and the proviso states that in the manufacture of articles in  which alcohol  is generated by a process of fermentation it  shall not exceed 12 per cent by volume.  Therefore the quantity of alcohol in an article in which alcohol is added or  produced by  distillation  is  determined by what  is  necessary  for extraction, or solution of the elements, and preservation of the article but in an article containing alcohol generated 146 by  a process of fermentation the percentage of alcohol,  it is directed, shall not exceed 12 per cent by volume. The  trial  Court  held that  the  offending  articles  were Ayurvedic  preparations in which alcohol was generated by  a process of fermentation and as alcohol exceeded 12 per  cent by  volume,  the preparations did not  correspond  with  the limitations   prescribed  by  S.  59A,  and  therefore   the exemption prescribed by S. 24A was inoperative. _ The  Court of Session and the High Court agreed with that view.  But it appears  that  in so holding, the  Courts  misconceived  the evidence.  Articles containing alcohol may be prepared by  a process  of  fermentation which generates alcohol  or  by  a process of distillation or by addition of free alcohol.  The manufacturing  processes  which result  in  distillation  of alcohol  and  generation  of  alcohol  by  fermentation  are distinct,  and there was on the record clear  evidence  that the offending preparations were manufactured by a process of distillation and were not preparations in which alcohol  was generated  by  fermentation.   Palnitkar,  Sub-Inspector  of Prohibition   &  Excise,  said  that   Mahadrakshasava   and Dashmoolarishta    are   distilled    Ayurvedic    products. Apparently it was conceded on behalf of the State before the Court  of  session that the two preparation  were  Ayurvedic medicinal preparations which "contained alcohol produced  by distillation",  and before the High Court also the case  was argued  on that footing.  If the bottles of  Mahadrakshasava and Dashmoolarishta attached from the shop of the  appellant contained  alcohol produced by distillation, the proviso  to S.  59A will have no application.  There is no  evidence  on the  record  to prove that the  two  preparations  contained

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

alcohol  in  excess of the quantity  permissible  under  the first paragraph of S. 59A.  It must be remembered that these preparation   were   manufactured  within   the   State   of Maharashtra  by manufacturers licensed under  the  Medicinal and  Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 16 of 1955  and were issued from a bonded warehouse.  This would justify the inference that they did correspond with the description  and limitations mentioned in S. 59A. But it was urged for the State that a medicinal  preparation which corresponds with the description and limitations under s. 59A may still be a preparation which is fit to be used as intoxicating liquor.  A medicinal preparation which  because of the high percentage of alcohol therein, even if taken  in an  ordinary or normal dose, may intoxicate a normal  person would  be  a preparation fit to be used as  an  intoxicating liquor.   Where the preparation contains a small  percentage of alcohol, but consumption of                             147 large  quantities may intoxicate, it would also be  regarded as a preparation fit for use as intoxicating liquor, if such consumption is not likely to involve any deleterious  effect or serious danger to health of the consumer. Whether  a  preparation is fit to be  used  as  intoxicating liquor  would  ordinarily  depend upon  evidence.   But  the Legislature  has  by  s.  6A  prescribed  special  rules  of evidence in adjudging whether an article is unfit for use as intoxicating  liquor.  Section 6A was added by Bombay  -’Act 26 of 1952 after this Court declared in, The State of Bombay v.  F. N. Balsara(1) amongst others, that cl. (c) of s.  12, insofar  as it affected possession of medicinal and’  toilet preparations containing alcohol, as invalid.  As  originally enacted  s.  6A,  insofar  as it is  material,  was  in  the following. form               "(1) For the purpose of determining whether               (a)   any  medicinal  or  toilet   preparation               containing alcohol, or               (b)   any  antiseptic preparation or  solution               containing alcohol, or               (c)   any flavoring extract, essence or syrup-               containing alcohol,               is  or  is  not an article unfit  for  use  as               intoxicating  liquor,.  the  State  Government               shall constitute a Board of Experts.               (2)               (3)               (4)               (5)               (6)   It  shall  be the duty of the  Board  to               advise  the State Government on  the  question               whether  any article mentioned in  sub-section               (1)  containing  alcohol is unfit for  use  as               intoxicating liquor and on such other  matters               incidental  to  the said question  as  may  be               referred  to it by the State  Government.   On               obtaining  such  advice the  State  Government               shall  determine whether any such  article  is               fit or unfit for use as intoxicating liquor or               not   and  such  article  shall  be   presumed               accordingly to,               (1)   [1951] S.C.R. 682.               148               be  fit  or  unfit  for  use  as  intoxicating               liquor, until the contrary is proved." This  Court  held in The State of Bombay  (now  Gujarat)  v. Narandas  Mangilal  Agarwal  & Another(1) that  it  was  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

obligatory  upon the State to consult the Board  of  Experts constituted under s. 6A before the State could establish  in a  prosecution  for  an offence under S. 66(1)  (b)  that  a medicinal  preparation  was unfit for  use  as  intoxicating liquor.  Evidence that the preparation was unfit for use  as intoxicating liquor can be adduced before the Court, and the prosecution  need not rely upon S. 6A(6) of the Act :  in  a prosecution for infringement of the prohibition contained in ss.  12  and 13, the State could rely upon  the  presumption :after resorting to the machinery under S. 6A(6), but  there was no obligation to consult the Board under S. 6A, nor  was the  consultation a condition ’precedent to the  institution of  proceeding for breach of the provisions of the Act.   In so holding, this Court disagreed with the view expressed  by the  Bombay  High Court in D. K. Merchant, v. The  State  of Bombay(2)   wherein  the  High  Court  had  held  that   the prosecution  for  offence under ss. 65 and 66 could  not  be maintained  unless the State Government was satisfied  after consulting the Board of Experts under S. 6A that the article was  fit to be used as intoxicating liquor.  The offence  in Narandas  Mangilal’s case(1) was committed in July 1955  and on  the terms of sub-s. (6) as it then stood it was open  to the State in a prosecution for infringement of a prohibition contained  in  ss. 12 and 13 to rely  upon  the  presumption under  S. 6A or to establish that the medicinal  preparation was  fit for use as intoxicating liquor aliunde.  By Act  22 of 1960, which was brought into force on April 20, 1960, the Bombay Legislature amended, inter alia, sub-s. (6) of S. 6A, and incorporated sub-s. (7) therein.  Sub-sections (6) & (7) as amended and incorporated read as follows :               "(6)  It  shall be the duty of  the  Board  to               advise  the State Government on  the  question               whether  any article mentioned in  sub-section               (1) is fit for use as intoxicating liquor  and               also   on  any  matters  incidental   to   the               question,   referred  to  it  by   the   State               Government.   On  obtaining such  advice,  the               State  Government shall determine whether  any               such  article is fit for use  as  intoxicating               liquor,  and upon determination of  the  State               Government  that  it is so fit,  such  article               shall, until the               (1) [1962] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 15.               (2) [1958] 60 B.L.R. 1183.                                    149               contrary   is  proved, be presumed to  be  fit               for use as into xicating  liquor.               (7)   Until    the   State   Government    has               determined as aforesaid any article  mentioned               in  subsection  (1)  to  be  fit  for  use  as               intoxicating liquor, every such article  shall               be deemed to be unfit for such use." The scheme of s. 6A has by the amending Act been  completely altered.  The Legislature has prescribed by sub-s. (7)  that until  the  State  Government  has  determined  any  article mentioned  in sub-s. (1) to be fit for use  as  intoxicating liquor, every such article, shall be deemed to be unfit  for such  use.   The  Legislature has  therefore,  prescribed  a fiction   which  continues  to  function  till   the   State Government  has  determined, on the report of the  Board  of Experts, that any article mentioned in sub-s. (1) is fit for use as intoxicating liquor.  By sub-s. (6) as amended it  is provided  that after the State Government has  obtained  the advice  of the Board of Experts, the State Government  shall determine   whether   such  article  is  fit  for   use   as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

intoxicating liquor and upon such determination of the State Government that it is so fit, such article shall, until  the contrary  is  proved,  be presumed to be unfit  for  use  as intoxicating liquor.  Under the amended S. 6A there is  only one  mode of proof by the State that an article is  fit  for use  as  intoxicating liquor, and that is by  obtaining  the advice   of   the  Board  of  Experts  and   recording   its determination,   that  the  article  is  fit  for   use   as intoxicating  liquor.  Until it is otherwise  determined  by the  State,  after  obtaining the report  of  the  Board  of Experts,  every  article mentioned in sub-s. (1)  is  to  be deemed  unfit for use as intoxicating liquor.  After  it  is determined  as  fit  for use as intoxicating  liquor,  in  a proceeding relating to the article it would under sub-s. (6) be presumed, that it is fit for use as intoxicating  liquor. But the presumption is rebuttable. In the present case the offence is alleged to have been com- mitted in September 1960.  After consulting the Board of Ex- perts the Government of Maharashtra issued a declaration  on October  4,  1960,  declaring  that  both  the  preparations Mahadrakshasava  and Dashmoolarishta were medicines fit  for use as intoxicating liquor.  Thereafter a police report  was filed  in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, on  June 2,  1962  charging the appellant with the offence  under  s. 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.  But on the date  on which the medicinal preparations were attached, the  statute had  provided that they shall be deemed for the  purpose  of the  Act as articles unfit for use as  intoxicating  liquor. Possession of the medicinal preparations 150 which were unfit for use as intoxicating liquor was, at  the date when they were attached, not an offence.  A  subsequent declaration  by  the  State that they were fit  for  use  as intoxicating  liquor,  could  not  have  any   retrospective operation,  and possession which was innocent could not,  by subsequent  act of the State, be declared as  offending  the statute. It  is  unfortunate that the High Court lost  sight  of  the change  in the scheme of S. 6A and followed the judgment  of this  Court  in Narandas Mangilal’s  case(1).   In  Narandas Mangilal’s case at all material times when the question fell to be considered, the Court had to decide whether sub-s. (6) of  S. 6A, as it then stood. prescribed the only  method  of proof  whether an offending medicinal preparation was  unfit for  use  as  intoxicating liquor, and  this  Court  on  the phraseology  used by the Legislature came to the  conclusion that  it was not the only method of proof.  But  the  incor- poration  of sub-s. (7) by the Legislature has  altered  the scheme  of  the Act.  Sub-section (6)  incorporated  in  its second  part both before and after the amendment, a rule  of evidence  :  but  the  rule in  sub-s.  (7),  that  until  a declaration is made to the contrary by the State  Government under  sub-s.  (6), every article mentioned  in  sub-s.  (1) shall be deemed unfit for use as intoxicating liquor, is not a  rule of evidence.  It defines for the purpose of  S.  24A and  related  sections  what an article  unfit  for  use  as intoxicating  liquor  is.   It is  plain  that  in  Narandas Mangilal’s case(1) the effect of sub-s. (7) of S. 6A did not fall to be considered. The  appellant was therefore wrongly convicted.  The  appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence are  set aside.  The fine if paid will be refunded. Appeal allowed. (1) [1962] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 15. 151

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8