KEKI BEJONJI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

KEKI BEJONJI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Appellant No. 2, a servant, is not in possession of the still unless it is left in his custody and cannot be convicted or presumed under s. 103; Appellant No. 1 was found in possession of a still ordinarily used for manufacture of intoxicant (not toddy) and the presumption under s. 103 properly applies. No prejudice...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant No. 1: Keki Bejonji; Appellant No. 2: Another (Appellant No. 2); Respondent: The State of Bombay
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 November 1960
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal of appellant No. 2 allowed; appeal of appellant No. 1 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Presumption Under Bombay Prohibition Act, Possession of Contraband, Abetment, Examination Under Code of Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Presumption Under Bombay Prohibition Act Possession of Contraband Abetment Examination Under Code of Criminal Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keki Bejonji

Appellant No. 1

Another (Appellant No. 2)

Appellant No. 2

The State of Bombay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether presumption under s. 103 of Bombay Prohibition Act arises when accused denies knowledge of articles recovered
  2. 2 Whether accused is prejudiced if no questions are put under s. 342 CrPC regarding recovered articles
  3. 3 Whether a servant can be said to be in possession of his master's goods for purpose of presumption under s. 103

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant No. 2, a servant, is not in possession of the still unless it is left in his custody and cannot be convicted or presumed under s. 103; Appellant No. 1 was found in possession of a still ordinarily used for manufacture of intoxicant (not toddy) and the presumption under s. 103 properly applies. No prejudice was caused by lack of specific questions under s. 342 CrPC as denial of knowledge was volunteered.

Court Disposition

Appeal of appellant No. 2 allowed; appeal of appellant No. 1 dismissed.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2 set aside.
  • Conviction of appellant No. 1 under s. 65(f) read with s. 81 Bombay Prohibition Act upheld; sentence not reduced.