JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The appellant Gopal Ramdas Nayar, was convicted under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment, for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month and also under section 3 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days, by the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, on September 21, 1973, in Criminal Case No. 1417/P of 1973 and 1418/P of 1973. 2. The prosecution case, against the accused may be summarised as under :--- S.I. Gavandi was Anti Liquor Patrol Officer at Kalachowkie, on June 11, 1972 and while he was on patrolling duty with his staff, at about 5 a.m. he noticed one MRX car bearing 5008 coming at a fast speed and with considerable weight and going along Dr. B.A. Road from north to south. This aroused his suspicion. He and his staff gave a chase to the car in the jeep, upto Jeejaebhoy Lane, i.e. Chor Galli where the car was intercepted near the Public Urinal. 3. They found the accused at the steering wheel of the car speeding the car which was stopped. The car was smelling of liquor. S.I. Gavadni removed the ignition key and kept it with him. Two panchas, (P.W. 1) Anaji Jagannath, who turned hostile to the prosecution at the trial, and (P.W. 2) Kisan Bhiva Tambe who supported the prosecution were called. The car was searched in the presence of the two panchas and the panchnama was made. During that search, they found 18 Kerosene Oil tins containing illicit liquor at the rear side of the car. There was no rear seat. Thirteen more Kerosene Oil tins containing illicit liquor were found in the dicky of the car. Sample from each of these 31 tins were taken on the spot in 31 empty bottles in the presence of the panchas and the panchanama was drawn up there. Contrabands and sample were sealed and labelled with the signatures of the panchas. The panchanama is at Ex. A on the record. 4. Sample from each of these 31 tins were taken on the spot in 31 empty bottles in the presence of the panchas and the panchanama was drawn up there. Contrabands and sample were sealed and labelled with the signatures of the panchas. The panchanama is at Ex. A on the record. 4. S.I. Gavandi then sent the samples to the Chemical analyser for analysis and on receipt of the report, he completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, under section 66(1)(b), alleging that the accused was found in possession of 31 Kerosene tins of illicit liquor in car MRX 5008, valued at Rs. 6200/- which he was transporting to sell and supply without permission and there by committed an offence under the Prohibition Act and as he was driving the motor car without driving licence, he committed an offence under section 3 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty. He contended that the whole prosecution case was false, and that he was not driving the car MRX 5008 on June 11, 1972. According to him, the evidence of (P.W. 3). S.I. Gavandi that he was driving that car at fast speed and gave hot chase upto Jeejaebhoy Lane, at Chor Galli and the car was intercepted was not true and it was also not proved that 31 tins as stated by the Sub-Inspector were found in the car. He stated that he did not know driving and the evidence of (P.W. 1) that he was on the front seat, was not true. He claimed to have no concern with the car or the contraband. 6. The learned Magistrate carefully considered the evidence of the Sub-Inspector and the panchas in the light of the panchanama and the contention raised on behalf of the defence, believed S.I. Gavandi and the panch Tambe who proved the panchanama, and found the accused guilty of the offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, charged against him in Case No. 1417/P of 1973 and also of the offence under section 3 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, charged against him in Case No. 1418/P of 1973 and sentenced him already stated above. The conviction and sentence are challenged in the above appeal. 7. The conviction and sentence are challenged in the above appeal. 7. The appeal would have been ordinarily disposed of by a Single Judge but it appears that the Single Judge was persuaded to refer the case to a Division Bench as there was some difference or conflict between the Judgment of the Single Judge (Bhole, J.) in (Amar Tharumal Rajpal v. The State of Maharashtra)1, 77 Bom.L.R. 162 and unreported Judgment of Chandurkar, J., (dated August 21, 1969 in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1968)2, particularly because, the petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the charge; and it was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 9, 1970. 8. However, we find that the unreported Judgment of Chandurkar, J., has no relevance to facts of the present case as that was not a case of transporting but of consumption of liquor, prohibited by the Prohibition Act. Mr. Shewakramani submitted relying on the Judgment in Amar Tharumal Rajpal and the Judgment of my learned brother Rage, J., in (Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1972, decided on July 18, 1973)3, that having regard to the provision of section 24-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, it was for the prosecution to establish that the so called illicit liquor found in the Kerosene oil tins in the car were not (1) toilet preparation, (2) Medical preparation containing alcohol, (3) antiseptic preparation or solution and (4) any flavouring extract, essence or syrup or solution, which are referred to the in that section. 9. In support of his argument, Mr. 9. In support of his argument, Mr. Shewakramani relied on a decision of Vyas and Shelat, JJ., in the case if the (State of Bombay v. Kapurchand Adebhan Oswal)4, 50 Bom.L.R. 734 Judgment of (Pandappa Rachhappa v. The State of Bombay)5, 62 Bom.L.R. 717, Judgment of the Supreme Court in (The State of Bombay v. Harandas Mangilal Agarwal)6, 64 Bom.L.R. 260, Judgment (The State v. Bhausa Namantsa Pawar)7, 64 Bom.L.R. 303 and the decision of the Supreme Court in of (Keki Bejonji and another v. State of Bombay)8, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 967, which laid down that unless the prosecution establishes by leading the evidence, that the liquor which was attached was not alcohol which was covered was entitled to acquittal in view of the said decision in the case of the (State of Bombay v. Bhalchandra Govind Hazare and another)9, in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 1959 and contended that in view of the decision the accused was entitled to acquittal. 10. The argument, however, ignored section 102 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, which after its amendment by Bom. 22, 1960, read as under : "(1) In prosecution under any of the provision of this Act, it shall be presumed, without further evidence, until the contrary is proved that the accused person has committed an offence under this Act in respect of any intoxicant hamp............flower or molasses or any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever, for the manufactures of any intoxicant. For the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily." It is, therefore, clear that once the prosecution proves that the liquor was intoxicant as defined in section 2(22) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which has been proved in the present case by production of the Chemical Analysis report under section 103, the burden is shifted to the accused to establish that the liquor which was attached was within one of the clause of section 24-A. 11. Apart from the fact that the accused had not raised this point in the lower Court, we find no substance in this point in view of the amendment of section 103 which clearly throws the burden on the accused, once the prosecution established that what was seized from the accused was intoxicant etc. The above division were based on the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 103. They do not refer to section 103. The above division were based on the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 103. They do not refer to section 103. In the light of this amendment, therefore, those divisions cannot help Mr. Shewakramani for contending that the accused was entitled to acquittal. 12. Mr. Shewakramani then challenged the finding of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the conviction was based entirely on the evidence of Sub-Inspector Gavandi and a panch who was living opposite Kalachowkie Police Station, and was, therefore, a panch who cannot be considered trust worthy particularly, having regards to his admission that he had acted as a panch previously 2 to 3 times and his Co-panch (P.W. 1) Anaji has turned hostile to the prosecution. In support of his argument, Mr. Shewakramani referred to the principles laid down in (The State v. Simon Kaitan Fernandez)10, 53 Bom.L.R. 713 relating to the credibility of panch and police witness and submitted that in the present case, it was wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate to convict the accused on the basis of the testimony of the Sub-Inspector and the supporting panch. 13. There is nothing in the said decision in the case of (The State v. Simon Kaitan Fernandez)10, which lays down any rigid rules making the Court to disbelieve police and panch. It only discusses generally the principles that should be born in mind while dealing with the testimony of these witnesses and gives some guide line to the Court to weight the evidence of parties and the Police Officer. In (Emperor v. Shanwar Nanu Koli)11, 52 Bom.L.R. 38 and (Emperor v. Kisan Naravan)12, 52 Bom.L.R. 280 the case in which the Court should insist on the acceptance of panch evidence, and cases in which the Court can rely on his testimony and further guide lines are laid down. 14. It is clear from all these decisions that under law, it is not obligatory to make a panchnama, when as in the present case the Sub-Inspector had to chase a speeding car carrying illicit liquor from street to street in the case of Bombay in the early hours before the population of Bombay wakes up to its routine duty. In (Girdhari Lal Gupta and another v. D.E. Mehta)13, A.I.R 1971 S.C. 28 in it is laid down as under : "Mr. Bhattacharaya, who followed Mr. In (Girdhari Lal Gupta and another v. D.E. Mehta)13, A.I.R 1971 S.C. 28 in it is laid down as under : "Mr. Bhattacharaya, who followed Mr. Chagla for the appellants, contend that serious question of law is involved, the question being that if an Investigation Officer conducts a search his evidence cannot be relied on unless it is corroborated. It is a novel proposition and he has not been able to cite any authority or principle in support of it. It all depends on the facts in each case." Hence the argument of Mr. Shewakramani attempting to elevate into law his proposition that conviction should not be based on the sole testimony of a Sub-Inspector whether or not support by one of the two panchas when this panch has turned hostile, must be rejected as being without any foundation in law or prudence which has matured into law. 15. It must in the nature of things depend on the facts of each case whether a Police Officer is able to get competent panch or panchas who will not turn hostile at the investigation before the trial under pressure from all kinds of people interested in the accused and whether the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the Sub-Inspector who has chased and arrested the boot-legger in the circumstances like the above. 16. Mr. Shewakramni is not able to point out a single reason as to why S.I. Gavadni should make out a false case against him. The learned Magistrate who had the advantage of seeing and hearing him has believed him. He is fully corroborated by the panchnama which was made on the spot and the panch witness (P.W. 2) Tambe. No doubt the fact that the panch witness stays opposite Kalachowkie Police Station and that he had acted as a panch previously on 2 or 3 occasions is a factor which must be taken that into consideration and after observing due precaution his statements has been believed. We do not find any reason to disagree from the view taken by the learned Magistrate with regards to the credibility of this witness or the Sub-Inspector. 17. Mr. Shewakramani was unable urge any other ground in support of the appeal. 18. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Conviction and sentence passed against the accused are confirmed. The accused to surrender to his bail forthwith. -----