K.D. SHARMA, C. J.— This is an application in revision filed by Chela Ram against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 18.9.78, upholding his conviction and sentences under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. It will not be out of place to mention that Chela Ram was prosecuted along with his wife, under Sec. 4 (2) of the Act, in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore. The learned Judicial Magistrate convicted Chela Ram and his wife of the said offence and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for five months. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, Chela Ram and his wife preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalore. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal of Chela Ram and partly accepted the appeal of his wife and while maintaining her conviction of one years rigorous imprisonment, to the sentence or imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

3. The wife of Chela Ram, petitioner, has not moved this Court in revision. So I proceed to deal with the revision petition of Chela Ram only.

4. Mr. S. R. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner Chela Ram vehemently contended before me that Chela Ram was not present in the house at the time of search. The search of the house was conducted in the presence of his wife Mst. Gomti. As a result of the search, about 70 bottles of liquor . were recovered from the room and kitchen of the house.

5. According to the submission of Mr. S. R. Singhi, in order to raise a presumption of guilt against the petitioner, it ought to have been made out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that he was in possession of the bottles of liquor, recovered on search. Because in cases under the Rajasthan Prohibition Act there cannot be an absolute presumption that the husband must be in possession of everything found inside his house for the simple reason that the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made applicable to the cases or offences under the Act, in the absence of any specific provision to this effect.

6. Mr. S.R. Singhi further contended that the prosecution has led no evidence on the record that Chela Ram had gone out-side the village the very day before his house was searched or a day prior thereto,because in the presence of such proof it would have been easy for the court to presume that the petitioner knew it well that as many as 70 bottles containing liquor were lying in his room and kitchen.

7. Mr. Niyazuddin, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand contended that the petitioner being head of the family must be presumed to have been in possession of the bottles of liquor lying in the room and kitchen of his house. According to the submission of the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner was an accessory and he was rightly held to be in possession of the bottles of liquor.

8. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. At the outset I may observe that the wife of the petitioner was held to have been in possession of the bottles of liquor because in her presence the house was searched and bottles containing liquor were recovered and she was unable to account for their presence in the room and kitchen satisfactorily.

9. It is admitted by the prosecution witness themselves that Chela Ram was not present in his house at the time when it was searched and a good number of bottles containing liquor were recovered from a room and the kitchen thereof. The prosecution has adduced no evidence to show that the petitioner had gone outside the village the very day when his house was searched or a day prior thereto. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be safely presumed that the petitioner was in possession of every thing found inside his house. The possibility of his wife having brought the bottles of liquor and kept them insid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document