GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THE appeal of the State against the accused, challenges the acquittal of the accused under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (Act No. XVII of 1969).
(2.) THE trial court has found that on June 27, 1977, the accused were found in possession of liquor in tin which was equivalent to 100 bottles. This liquor was taken in possession vide Ex. P 1. On examination of the evidence, the trial court found that this fact is proved that the accused were in possession of the liquor. Curiously enough, the trial court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the place from where the liquor was purchased and the place where it was taken, have not been proved. Another ground taken by the trial court is that the Mothi in that connection was not produced and his production was must. In my opinion, both these grounds are absolutely untenable, as no law requires that the informant should be produced, nor is it necessary that the source from which the liquor was purchased should be disclosed nor the place where it is taken, is required to be proved.
(3.) IT is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate could not appreciate that the possession of the liquor, at the time when the Rajasthan Prohibition Act was in force, it self was an offence, and nothing more was required to be proved.;