AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 183 wordsK.N. Mudaliyar, J.—Mr. Fyzee Mahmood, appearing for accused 1 and 3 in this revision petition argues that the contraband in this case,
namely. M. Os. Nos. 1 to 7 contained brandy is not proved in the court of the trial Magistrate, although the appellate Court has acted upon the
report of analysis by the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government for Excise and Prohibition. The appellate Court has
erred in acting on this document without giving opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the concerned witness on the relevant report. The
appellate court proceeded on the footing that M. Os. 1 to 7 contained brandy, a prohibited liquor. This has got to be proved by the author of the
analysis report by giving evidence and marking the said document. This infirmity alone vitiates the conviction of the petitioners. I set aside the
conviction of the petitioners and the sentences imposed on them and direct retrial of the case. It is open to the petitioners at the conclusion of their
retrial to raise their contentions both on facts and law for their acquittal.