9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ottles and without breaking the seal. There could also be seepage from the covers if the bottles were turned up side down. He felt that this left a scope for tampering as well as deterioration in strength of the liquor in storage beyond the permissible limits; and, consequently, a few days later, on 24th June, 1965, he issued a letter to the Officer-in-Charge, Warehouses, Jorhat and Nazira; which were issuing the sealed bottles, to take all possible steps to secure the marked closures properly and to ensure that no sealed bottle of liquor with loose closures were issued from the warehouses. A copy of this letter was endorsed as a circular to all the lessees of the liquor shops, including the respondent. In the endorsement to the lessees, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reof, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent to show cause on 16th August, 1965. The respondent in his explanation denied having diluted or weakened the liquor in the bottles on the sale rack. He explained that the seals were of such a nature that there could be no dilution unless the covers were completely removed, so that, according to him, the charge of dilution was out of question and was absolutely impossible. He suggested in his explanation that, very likely, the deterioration must have taken place in the warehouse before the bottles were issued to him. The explanation contained further details showing cause against the notice issued to him. The appellant asked for comments on this explanation from the Superintendent of Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the Board of Revenue had held that there was no direct evidence to show that the respondent had wilfully caused deterioration in the strength of the liquor in question or that some one else did this on his behalf. The Board of Revenue then proceeded to consider whether there were circumstances in the case to justify recording a conclusion against the respondent, and, for that purpose, raised a presumption that the respondent must have knowledge that the liquor in the bottles was adulterated, in the absence of proof to the contrary. The High Court rightly pointed out that such a presumption is not justified on the language of Rule 300. The Board of Revenue, in support of its view, had relied upon some sections of the Excise Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not charged with storage of deteriorated intoxicant under the last part of Rule 300 quoted above. So far as deliberate adulteration by the respondent is concerned, there was no material on which such a finding could have been recorded. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out some circumstances which, according to him justified such a finding. He started with the proposition that it was the duty of the Warehouse to supply 30 UP liquor to the respondent and, while 10 bottles on the sale rack were found deteriorated to a considerable extent, 5 bottles on the same rack and all the bottles tested from sealed boxes by the Superintendent of Excise were found to contain liquor of proper strength. The Supdt. of Excise also had report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n up at the time of the inspection, nor was it mentioned in his first report to the appellant. At that stage, all he had said was that the covers appeared to him to be suspicious. The suspicion could be because the covers were defective and loose. That was a defect which he had been noticed earlier by the Superintendent of Excise himself in some bottles stored in a number of liquor shops, indicating that the defect must have occurred in the Warehouse where the sealing of bottles was being carried out. If there were clear signs of tampering with the closures in the two bottles, that was a strong circumstance indicating that the deterioration may not have taken place in the Warehouse and may be the result of deliberate adulteration after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
