QUEEN-EMPRESS Vs. GANGAYYA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The Second-class Magistrate is entirely wrong in supposing that the "wash" consisting of a liquid mixture of jaggery and babool bark is not "materials for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. The evidence of the Abkari officers on that point is clear and is not contradicted.
(2.) The case to which the Second-class Magistrate refers (Weir's Criminal Rulings page 417) in support of his view is totally irrelevant It was passed (as appears from the report itself) with reference to the language of Section 23A of Act III of 1864 as amended by Act V of 1879, which Acts were repealed by the present Act I of 1886, The former Acts were defective in not providing for the case of possession of "materials" for distillation, but the defect was remedied by the present Act, and it was under the present Act that the charge was made.
(3.) We set aside the acquittal and convict the accused (Gangireddi Gangayya) of an offence punishable under Section 55 (g) of Act I of 1886, and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 10, or in default of payment to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.