Possession of any quantity of intoxicant, including liquor, is an offense under Section 18 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act.

D. M. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision, the petitioner challenges the legality of the confirming order of conviction and the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo S. I. for one week more for the offence under section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter to as the 'act' ).

( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is, on 29-9-1985 at about 2 p. m. , P. W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Excise along with P. W. 2, the Excise Constable, on suspicion detained the petitioner who was found carrying on his cycle 20 litres of illicit distilled liquor. He could not account for such possession. The liquid and the containers were seized and P. W. 1 carried on both hydrometer and litmus paper tests. On smelling the liquid he found that the same was illicit distilled liquor. After completing the inquiry he submitted prosecution report. The petitioner denied the prosecution case.

( 3 ) MRS. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the courts below committed an error in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence alleged on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the two witnesses for prosecution who were the excise staff and thus, interested in the prosecution of the petitioner. The second limb of argument of Mrs. Mohanty was that, in the absence of any notification either by the Board of Revenue or by the State Government prescribing the minimum quantity of liquor, the possession of which beyond that limit would amount to an offence, the courts below should have held that the petitioner did not commit any offence. In other words, according to the learned counsel, in the absence of any such notification, mere possession of any quantity of liquor would not be punishable. Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supported the findings of the courts below.

( 4 ) MRS. Mohanty, on the point of absence of notification, referred to a decision of this Court reported in (1987) 64 CLT 144, Paramanada Jena v. State, a case under Section 47 (a) of the Act. I have gone through the decision carefully. The attention of the court was drawn to Sections 8, 12 and 19 of the Act but not to Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act reads as follows : "18. Possession of intoxicant not obtained from a licensed vendor :- (1) No person shall have in his possession any intoxicant which has not been obtained from a licensed vendor of the same. " sub-Section (2) of Section 18 prescribes certain exceptions in regard to which the provisions under Sub-Section (1) would not be applicable. In other words, so far as Section (2) is concerned, the person in possession of any intoxicant shall have to justify his possession under the circumstance enumerated under Sub-Section (2 ). A reading of Section 18 makes it clear that, a person is prohibited to possess any intoxicant whatsoever irrespective of quantity. Quantity is immaterial for the purpose of this Section. 'intoxicant' has been defined under Section 2 (12-a) of the Act which means, any liquor or intoxicating drug and includes mohua flower. Sub-Section (14) of Section 2 defines 'liquor' which includes, all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol, such as spirits of wine, spirit, wine fermented tari, pachwai and beer, and also unfermented tari and also any other substance which the State Government may by notification, declare to be liquor for the purpose of this Act. Thus Section 18 of the Act prohibits the possession of any intoxicant irrespective of quantity which includes also liquor. Section 47 predicates that a person will be liable for conviction if he contravenes the provisions of the Act. Since the possession of any intoxicant which we have seen, includes also liquor has been prohibited under Section 18 of the Act, in my view, possession itself to be considered as illegal, and, therefore, punishable under Section 47 (a) of the Act. For the above reasons, the decision cited by Mrs. Mohan