1972 (11) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant was guilty of consuming alcohol in violation of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
2. Whether the defense of consuming Javerian Jivan mixture to alleviate stomach pain was valid.
3. Whether the burden of proof was discharged by the appellant to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 66(2) and 85(2) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a police Head Constable, was found unconscious in a taxi, smelling of alcohol, and unable to take care of himself. The medical examination confirmed the presence of alcohol in his blood, leading to charges under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

2. The appellant's defense was that he consumed Javerian Jivan mixture for stomach pain, which rendered him unconscious. However, inconsistencies arose regarding where and when the mixture was consumed, as well as the simultaneous unconsciousness of his companion in the taxi. The evidence presented by the taxi driver and the appellant was deemed unreliable and inconsistent.

3. The burden of proof to show that the alcohol consumption was due to a permissible substance lay with the appellant under Sections 66(2) and 85(2) of the Act. The appellant's attempt to rebut the presumption was found inadequate as the evidence presented did not align with the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized the need for a true and supported explanation to discharge the burden of proof in statutory presumptions.

4. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the requirement for the appellant to provide a credible and verifiable explanation to rebut the statutory presumption. The discrepancies in the appellant's statements, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the implausibility of the defense led to the rejection of the appellant's defense and the affirmation of the High Court's decision to convict him.

5. Ultimately, the Court found that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the High Court's decision to convict the appellant under the Bombay Prohibition Act.