JUDGMENT

Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ. - The appellant, Biswas, has been convicted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, of offences under Sections 46 and 48 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 210 under fee latter section; no separate sentence has been passed under the former section. The circumstances antecedent to the prosecution, as established by the evidence, may be briefly narrated.

2. On the 12th October 1912, the Deputy Inspector of Excise at Calcutta, upon information received, searched the premises of the accused and found 32 boxes each containing 6 bottles and an isolated bottle of eau-de-Cologne and also 23 long shaped eau-de-Cologne phials all containing a similar liquid. On examination the contents were found to be perfumed denatured spirit The Deputy Inspector also found two boxes of labels similar to those affixed to the phials. The accused was thereupon prosecuted and charged with possessing, without license, 193 bottles and 23 long shaped phials containing perfumed spirit made with denatured spirit, which had been rendered fit for human consumption; he was also charged with having manufactured and sold such spirit from time to time, with attempting to render denatured spirit fit for human consumption, with having in his possession such spirit, and with bottling such spirit for the purpose of sale. The accused repudiated all these charges, and asserted that the liquid contained in the bottles and phials was intended to be used as a furniture-wash, not as liquor to be consumed. The prosecution has resulted in the conviction of the accused as already stated.

3. On the present appeal the propriety of the conviction has been assailed on the ground that the elements necessary to constitute an offence under Sections 46 and 48 have not been established on the evidence. We Shall examine separately the arguments in relation to the two sections named, and as the sentence has been passed only on the basis of the conviction u/s 48, we shall first consider the scope and effect of that section in relation to the facts elicited at the trial.

4. Section 48, in so far as it is sought to be made applicable to the case before us, provides that if any person attempts to render fit for human consumption any spirit which has been denatured, he shall be liable to be punished in the prescribed manner. To support a conviction u/s 48 two elements must consequently be established, namely, first, that the spirit is denatured spirit, and, secondly, that the accused has attempted to render such spirit fit for human consumption. Now Clause (6) of Section 2 defines the term "denatured" to mean "effectually and permanently rendered unfit for human consumption." A very serious difficulty is raised by this definition. The words "unfit for human consumption" may perhaps be paraphrased as "liable to be injurious to health", but what is meant by the words effectually and permanently"? The Legislature cannot have intended to mean by "denatured spirit" such as would remain unfit for human consumption in spite of dilation with water, as even the most poisonous substances can be rendered not only harm less, but in some cases beneficial by sufficient dilution. Then, is the definition intended to meet the case of spirit so treated that no chemical process, which does not substantially increase the bulk of the liquor, can render it fit for human consumption, or, did the Legislature contemplate some process which, in the absence of some chemical treatment, would render it effectually and permanently unfit for consumption; in other words, did the Legislature contemplate some denaturing process which would be proof against any process intended to alter the nature of the spirit, or only a process which would be permanently effective in the absence of some chemical treatment or process of filtration? On the one hand, it is difficult to imagine a denaturing process which would preserve its effect in the face of every poss