Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Possession is itself an offence - Onus to prove innocence is on the accused. - In a case under Kerala Act which came before Supreme Court contention raised by the petitioner was hat mere possession arrack or intoxicating drug without proof by the prosecution that it was nixed with noxious substance is per se arbitrary, unfair an unconscionable procedure violating Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was further contented that the universal dec1araion of human rights, the civil and political rights, Convention to which India is a Member, guarantee fundamental freedom and liberty to an accused. The procedure prescribed for trial must also stand the test of the rights guaranteed by those fundamental human rights. In criminal jurisprudence, the settled law is that the prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offences for which the accused has been charged with. The proof of guilt of the accused should be on the prosecution and be beyond reasonable doubt. At no stage of trial, the accused sunder an obligation to disprove his innocence. Supreme Court held that it is true and in disputable that the golden rule that runs through the web of all the civilised criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged ,offence. The burden to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients of the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. If there is any reasonable doubt le accused gets the benefits of acquittal. But the rule gets modulated with the march of time, whether the legislature could step in and provide exceptions, create offences and also place part of the burden of proof on the accused, where the facts are within his special knowledge or intention is locked up in the mind of the accused to prove the said facts is constitutional and violate fundamental human rights. Supreme Court further held that the question of intention bears no relevance to an offence under Section 57-A and equally of culpability or negligence. It is seen that mixing or permitting to mix noxious substance or any other substance with liquor or intoxicated drug or omission to take reasonable precaution or being in possession without knowledge of its adulteration for the purpose of unjust enrichment would be without any regard for loss of precious human lives or grievous hurt. The legislature has noted the inadequacy and deficiency in the existing law to meet the menace of adulteration of liquor etc. and provided for new offences and directed with mandatory language protection of the health and precious lives of innocent consumers. While interpreting the law, the court must be cognizant to the purpose of the law and respect the legislative animation and effectuate the law for social welfare. The legislature enacted deterrent social provisions to combat the degraded human conduct. These special provisions are to some extent harsh and are a departure from normal criminal jurisprudence. But it is not uncommon in criminal statutes. It is a special mode to tackle new situations created by human proclivity to amass wealth at the alter of human lives. So it is not right to read down the law.