NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the State challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, North Kanara, Karwar, in Crl. App. 7| l971 which had been filed by the respondent who had been convicted by the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karwar, in Crl. Case 655 1970 for an offence under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that in the early morning; of 5th October, 1969 two Constables were on patrol duty and when they were passing in front of Anand Bhavan Hotel in Karwar they saw the respondent-accused proceeding on a cycle. He had one gunny bag. The two Constables collected Panchayatdars and searched the gunny bag in the presence of the Panchayatdars. The gunny bag contained a big glass jar and that jar contained illicitly distilled liquor. A sample was taken and put into a separate bottle and sealed. The contents were measured and they were found to be two gallons of illicit liquor. A 'panchanama' was recorded. The articles were seized and a charge sheet was filed stating that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sec. 34 of the mysore Excise Act. The respondent pleaded not guilty and urged that he was not found in possession of these articles. ( 3 ) BOTH the lower Courts have, on facts, held that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the two Constables had found this respondent having possession of the said quantity of liquor and that that liquor contained an intoxicant as certified by the Assistant Chemical examiner. They have further on held that the respondent had in his possession about two gallons of intoxicant. The learned Magistrate has held that presumption under S. 40 of the Mysore Excise Act was available to the prosecution and therefore, the offence had been established. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the presumption was not available to show that the intoxicant was unlawfully manufactured i. e. , illicitly distilled and the prosecution had no evidence to establish that the said intoxicant was illicitly distilled and therefore, no conviction could be passed for the offence under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the presumption was not available to show that the intoxicant was unlawfully manufactured i. e. , illicitly distilled and the prosecution had no evidence to establish that the said intoxicant was illicitly distilled and therefore, no conviction could be passed for the offence under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act. ( 4 ) THE learned State Public Prsecutor strenously urged that in order to raise a presumption under S. 40 of the Mysore Excise Act the only two things that are required to be proved by the prosecution are that a person was in possession of an intoxicant and he was unable to account for it satisfactorily and when once these two facts are established then the presumption that either the offence under Section 32 of the mysore Excise Act or under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act had been committed, arises. He, therefore, urged that in this case the prosecution had established that the respondent was in possession of the intoxicant and that he had not accounted for it satisfactorily and therefore, it will have to be presumed that the said intoxicant was unlawfully manufactured. It is the correctness of this contention that has to be examined in this appeal. . ( 5 ) SECTION 34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 reads as follows ;" 34. penalty for illegal possession. Whoever, without lawful authority has in his possession any quantity of any intoxicant knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, cultivated or collected, or knowing the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both: provided that the fine, if any, inflicted, shall not be less than four times the amount of duty leviable on such intoxicant. "a reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the stress is on the point of knowledge that the intoxicant in the possession ot that person is unlawfully manufactured etc. Mere possession of an unlawfully manufactured. . . etc. , intoxicant it, not made punishable under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act. It is possession with knowledge that it is unlawfully manufactured. , etc. , that is made punishable. Mere possession of an unlawfully manufactured. . . etc. , intoxicant it, not made punishable under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act. It is possession with knowledge that it is unlawfully manufactured. , etc. , that is made punishable. It is well-known that intention or knowledge cannot be satisfactorily established in certain cases. In certain cases intention or knowledge can be inferred by the nature of the acts committed by the accused. Here, while considering the provisions of S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act no acts are committed by the accused. But the only act committed by him is possessing an intoxicant we are, therefore, clearly of opinion that in such cases the presumption that can be raised under Sec. 40 of the Mysore Excise Act is in regard to the knowledge which is a necessary ingredient of an offence under S. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act. When once the prosecution establishes that an accused was in possession of an intoxicant and that intoxicant was unlawfully manufactured. ,. etc. , then a presumption that the accused had the requisite knowledge of that fact i. e. , that it was unlawfully manufactured. . . etc. can be raised by virtue of Sec. 40 of the Mysore Excise act. But to contend that the presumption provided u s. 40 of the Mysore excise Act would extend to the extent of presuming mat an intoxicant is unlawfully manufactured. . . etc. , as laid down in Sec. 34 of the Mysore excise Act would be, in our opinion, reading too much into S. 40 of the mysore Excise Act and would lead to disastrous consequences which would be contrary to the intendment of the Legislature. ( 6 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons we hold that the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with and therefore, dismiss this appeal. --- *** --- .