JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal against the order dated 14-3-69 of the Sessions Judge of Kanpur allowing; the appeal of Mahendra, Respondent and acquitting him of the offence punishable u/s 60 of the U.P. Excise Act. The Respondent was charged for being in possession of 1600 grams of contraband Ganja and 2-3/4 Tolas of Charas. 2. On the 26th of December, 1967, the Additional District Magistrate (City) paid a surprise visit to the country liquor shop in village Pura Bazar, Police Station Sheorajpur, district Kanpur, in which the Respondent was working as Salesman and found the above quantity of Ganja and Charas in the shop. The recovered articles were examined by the Excise Inspector whereafter the Respondent was prosecuted. 3. The question put to the respond dent was whether the above Ganja and Charas were recovered on a personal search being taken and he replied in the affirmative. He adhered to the admission even when it was brought to his notice that he could be convicted on its basis. The magistrate thereupon convicted the Respondent u/s 60(a) of the U.P. Excise Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 400/- in default, three months R.I. 4. Mahendra preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge raising many points. In none it was said that the recovery was from the shop and not on his personal search. The learned Sessions Judge however allowed the appeal being under the impression that Section 7 of the U.P. Excise Act granted immunity to a servant found in possession of an intoxicant on aacount of his master and also because it was not put to him that he was in possession of the intoxicant oh his own account; such facts could not be assumed nor could be used against him. 5. The attention of the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have been drawn to Section 71 of the U.P. Excise Act. 5. The attention of the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have been drawn to Section 71 of the U.P. Excise Act. The material part thereof is as below: ...and the holdar of a licence, permit or pass under this Act shall be liable to punishment, as well as the actual offender, foil any offence punishable u/s 60, Section 62 Section 63 or Section 64 committed by any person in his employ and acting on his behalf as if le had himself committed the same, unless he shall establish that all due and reasonable precautions were exercised by him to present the commission of such offence; Provided, that fib person other than the actual offend shall be punished with imprisonment except in default, of payment of fine. 6. Section 71 makes it clear that for possession of an intoxicant without, any licence or permit not only can the licencee be prosecuted, but also the actual offender, that is the person actually in possession thereof. 7. All the provisions of an enactment must be read together, It cannot be assumed that any provision of the enactment is a surplus age or need not be given effect to when the matter is considered in this right Section 7 cannot grant immunity to the actual offender. By virtue, of Section 7 she employer of, a clerk or servant or husband, can be deemed to be in possession and can be prosecuted for being in possession of an intoxicant provided tat the prosecution proves that the possession of such person is on behalf of the master or husband. When Section 7 permit the prosecution of the master or husband also, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that by virtue of this provision the actual offender cannot be prosecuted for the same offence. The matter has been clarified in, Section 71 in respect of the holder of a licence, permit or pass. 8. It shall, however lave to be kepi in mind that the master or husband can be deemed to be in possession only if it is proved that the actual possession was on behalf of the master or husband. However, in the case of a licence the burden will lie upon him to show that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission of an offence. However, in the case of a licence the burden will lie upon him to show that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission of an offence. Consequently, if the salesman commits an offence on his own account but not on account of the licensee the, latter shall still be liable for prosecution if he is not able to establish that he had taken due and reasonable precautions to prevent the commission of ah offence. 9. In the instant case only the Salesman and not the licencee, was prosecuted which was permissible. It is a different thing that the, Salesman be not liable to conviction for the reason that he was not aware of the, existence of the intoxicant in the shop. In case the recovery was made on personal search being taken this question shall not arise. 10. The order of the learned Sessions Judge thus deserves to be set aside. In view of the admission made by the Respondent none of the documents were proved and exhibited. As there is a possibility of a mistake having crept in the question as put to the Respondent the proper thing shall be to set aside the order of the Magistrate also, so that there may be a proper trial. 11. The request for not ordering a fresh trial is not being accepted as the offence is of a serious nature. The offence is alleged to have been, committed not by an ordinary citizen but by the salesman of a dealer duly licenced to sell country liquor. The checking pf country liquor shops lying in Mufassil areas is done occasionally and if the licencee or the salesman appears to have committed some offence their case must be dealt with severely. 12. The Government Appeal is hire by allowed and the orders of both the learned Sessions Judge and of the trying Magistrate are set aside. The Magistrate shall now re-try the accused after perusing the necessary documents and putting all the material questions to the Respondent for his reply and explanation. The record shall be returned without any delay. As re-trial shall take place, the amount of fine shall be refunded, if applied for, to the Respondent himself.