This is a reference under section 432, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, in a batch of four cases before him, all relating to offences under the Madras Prohibition Act. In C.C. No.5388 of 1953 there are two accused, of whom the 1st accused is charged with offences punishable under sections 4 (1)(a), 4(1)(j) and 24 of the Madras Prohibition Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act). The 2nd accused is alleged to have commited offences punishable under sections 4(1)(k) and 12 of the Act. In C.C. No.5389 of 1953, the 1st accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(j) of the Act, while the 2nd accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under section 4(1)(k) and section 12 of the Act. Similarly, in C.C. No.5390 of 1953, the offences alleged against the 1st accused are offences under sections 4(1)(a) and 4 (1)(j). Those against the 2nd accused are under section 4(1)(k) and section 12 of the Act. In C.C. No.5391 of 1953, the 2nd accused in the other three cases is the sole accused and he is charged with offences punishable under section 4 (1)(a) and section 24 of the Act. The following provisions indicate the nature of the offences of which the several accused have been charged:-

"4. (1) Whoever,

(a) imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug; or

............................................................................

(j) consumes or buys liquor or any intoxicating drug; or

(k) allows any of the acts aforesaid upon premises in his immediate possession, shall be punished-

.........................................................

12. Where any offence against this Act is committed in any area to which it has been extended whoever commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of, any of the acts making up the offence shall be liable to be punished therefor, whether such commission, attempt or abetment takes place within or outside such area.

24. In the event of any breach by the holder of such licence or permit or by his servants or by any one acting with his express or implied permission on his behalf, of any of the terms or conditions of such licence or permit, such holder shall, in addition to the cancellation or suspension of the licence or permit granted to him, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both, unless he shall establish that all due and reasonable precautions were exercised by him to prevent any such breach.

Any person who commits any such breach shall, whether he acts with or without the permission of the holder of the licence or permit, be liable to the same punishment."

When the four cases were taken up for trial on 26th December, 1953, counsel for the accused filed a petition under section 432, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the Magistrate may state a case on the points raised in their petition. Arguments were heard, and eventually, the learned Magistrate referred for decision of this Court under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the following questions of law:-

"(1) Whether section 4(2) creating presumption of law is void due to (a) since, it is repugnant to the provisions of existing Indian law’, to wit, the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the prosecution, (b) due to Article 14 since the presumption which is made obligatory in the trial of the offence by the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure denies equality before the law and equal protection of laws, (c) due to Article 21 of the Constitution by reason of the accused being presumed to be guilty contrary to the procedure established by law, namely, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Evidence Act and well-established laws, of the land and Article 11 of the Charter of Human Rights which under Articles 37 and 51 of the Constitution is made part of the fundamental rights, an