Sukru Vs. Emperor

Sukru vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 15, 1918

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/466652

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/466652
Court: Allahabad
Judge: P.C. Banerji, J.
Decided On: Apr 15, 1918
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

U.P. Excise Act (IV of 1910), Sections 66(a) and 71 - Accused in possession of liquor--Presumption--Offence. -

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukru

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1918All181(1); 46Ind.Cas.294

Excerpt

u.p. excise act (iv of 1910), sections 66(a) and 71 - accused in possession of liquor--presumption--offence. - 1. the accused in this case was convicted on his own plea of being in possession of illicit liquor and was sentenced under section 60(a) of the excise act to one and a half months' rigorous imprisonment. the statement of the accused which the magistrate apparently accepted was that his son was ill and that he had brought a small quantity of liquor from his brother-in-law. the magistrate was of opinion, as he states in his explanation, that under section 71 of the act the presumption was that the accused had himself manufactured the liquor. no such presumption arises in the case. the only presumption is that the accused was in possession of an excisable article. this, however, the accused himself admitted. under the circumstances the sentence of imprisonment was unduly severe and was not called for. i accordingly reduce the sentence to one of a fine of rs. 10 or, in default, to one week's rigorous imprisonment. if the fine is paid the bail bond given by the accused will be discharged.

Full Judgment

1. The accused in this case was convicted on his own plea of being in possession of illicit liquor and was sentenced under Section 60(a) of the Excise Act to one and a half months' rigorous imprisonment. The statement of the accused which the Magistrate apparently accepted was that his son was ill and that he had brought a small quantity of liquor from his brother-in-law. The Magistrate was of opinion, as he states in his explanation, that under Section 71 of the Act the presumption was that the accused had himself manufactured the liquor. No such presumption arises in the case. The only presumption is that the accused was in possession of an excisable article. This, however, the accused himself admitted. Under the circumstances the sentence of imprisonment was unduly severe and was not called for. I accordingly reduce the sentence to one of a fine of Rs. 10 or, in default, to one week's rigorous imprisonment. If the fine is paid the bail bond given by the accused will be discharged.

Same Parties Sukru vs Emperor Same Subject Excise Same Judge P.C. Banerji, J.

Excise