JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 482 Cr. P. C. which has arisen in the following circumstances : 2. Jhammat Mai petitioner booked 12 drums of thinner by passenger train from Bombay to Abu Road on 12th May, 1974. He took delivery of five drums and was taking them to his residence on 22nd May, 1974. The drums were intercepted by the police constable as there was a general Complaint against the petitioner that he imported liquor in the name of thinner, or prepared liquor out of thinner. The police constables were obstructed by the sons and relatives of the petitioner. A case was registered and 7 more drums of the material were seized by the police from the Railway godown on 14th July, 1974. After investigation the police submitted a challan on 22-7-74 against the petitioner and six others, under sections 30, 65 (a), 66 (b), 83 and 90 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter called `the Act') and under sections 147, 327, 273, 285, 341 and 186 IPC even though by then the chemical report was not received. 3. Before the challan was presented in the court the petitioner made applications on 10-6-74 and 14-6-74 to the magistrate for release of the drums as thinner was a spirituous preparation for the possession of which no licence was needed under the Act. The petitioner mainly relied upon a letter of the District Excise Officer of 26th July, 1976, written to one Amrit Lal that section 59C and 59D relating to control and regulation of denatured spirituous preparation had no application as these sections were introduced by amendment in the year 1960 which was not applicable to the Abu area. The learned Magistrate rejected this application by his order dated 15-6-74. He held that the petitioner had committed violation of section 30 of the Act, as it stood before it was repealed in 1960 and the rules 10,11, 12, 15, 18 and 20 made under Bombay Abkari Act, 1878 which still continued to apply to Abu area. The petitioner had also filed a writ petition against the seizure of the drums in this court on 22-6-74 vide S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1501/74. One of the main grounds in the writ petition was that the petitioner had imported liquor in the year 1966 as well and he was prosecuted for the same. The petitioner had also filed a writ petition against the seizure of the drums in this court on 22-6-74 vide S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1501/74. One of the main grounds in the writ petition was that the petitioner had imported liquor in the year 1966 as well and he was prosecuted for the same. He was, however, acquitted by the Magistrate Abu Road by his Judgment dated 23-2-1970. Along with that writ petition a stay application was also made in which this Court made an order on 20-8-74 that the articles be returned to the petitioner on his furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abu Road in respect of the price of such goods. However this order shall be subject to the final order that may be passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road in criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act. In pursuance of this order the learned Magistrate directed on 20-8-74 that the seized articles may be returned to the petitioner provided he furnished a bank guarantee for Rs. 7,663-20 paise. 4. On 12th March, 1975, the learned Magistrate framed the following charges in the case : 1. against Jhammat Mai under sections 30, 65(a), 66 (b) and 90 of the Act and sections 147, 186, and 285 IPC ; 2. and against the remaining accused under sections 30, 65 (a), 66(b) and 90 of the Act and under sections 147 and 186 IPC. 5. On 25-4-75 Jhammat Mai petitioner filed this application under section 482 Cr. P.C. praying that the 12 drums of thinner recovered from him be directed to be released to the petitioner and the criminal case No. 359/74 pending in the court of the Magistrate Abu Road be quashed. While this petition was pending the magistrate made an order on 20-6-75 that the goods can be taken away by the petitioner provided he deposits the amount in fixed deposit account of a bank and endorses the receipts in favour of the court and submits the same in the court. 6. This is the actual position that stands today. I have heard arguments of both the sides. 6. This is the actual position that stands today. I have heard arguments of both the sides. The learned Public Prosecutor made anew argument in this court that since the thinner was the preparation made with the denatured spirit it is a liquor as defined in the Act and falls within the mischief of section 12 This argument was said to be met by the learned counsel for the petitioner by a reference to clause (3) of section 24A according to which Chapter III and therefore, its section 12 had no application to any antiseptic preparation or solution containing alcohol which is unfit for use as intoxicating liquor. A report of the Public Analyst in this respect was called by this court. The Analyst reported that the samples in the case contained alcohol and can be used as an antiseptic for external use only. The samples were unfit for human consumption as intoxicating liquor due to the presence of methyl alcohol which is a poison. The liquid has the property of causing intoxication but it is lethal due to the presence of methyl alcohol. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as held in C. R. H. Readymoney Ltd., Bombay and Another v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 Bombay 181 if a substance is capable of causing intoxication or has the property of causing intoxication, it is covered by the expression "for use as intoxicating liquor". Since the Public Analyst has reported that the substance has the property of causing intoxication section 24A (3) can not be pressed into service by the petitioner. Even though the substance is unfit- for human consumption as intoxicating liquor, it is still an intoxicating liquor. The learned Public Prosecutor even submitted that if that be so, the prosecution is likely to apply to the Magistrate for amendment of the charges and it will not be proper for this court to quash the proceedings in its inherent jurisdiction. 7. After considering the arguments of either side I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor. It will not be proper for this court to say exactly what offence has the petitioner committed or not committed until a judgment in this respect has been pronounced by the learned magistrate. 8. I therefore, reject the prayer for quashing all the proceedings pending in criminal case No. 359/74 of the court of Judicial Magistrate Abu Road. 9. It will not be proper for this court to say exactly what offence has the petitioner committed or not committed until a judgment in this respect has been pronounced by the learned magistrate. 8. I therefore, reject the prayer for quashing all the proceedings pending in criminal case No. 359/74 of the court of Judicial Magistrate Abu Road. 9. As regards the other prayer for the delivery of the articles, it appears to me to be just that the articles may be delivered to the petitioner upon his furnishing adequate security. At one time the learned Magistrate thought that nothing sort of a bank guarantee will satisfy him. At other time the learned Magistrate thought that a fixed deposit receipt endorsed in the name of the court will be an adequate security. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate be directed to release the goods upon solvent security. I think this is a reasonable request and should be accepted. 10. Consequently, 1. direct that the articles be released to the petitioner upon a solvent security to the extent of Rs. 7,500/- to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate Abu Road with the condition that the articles in question shall not be sold or used for consumption within the prohibition area. 11. Decision of the application accordingly. The report of the Chemical Analyst be sent to the lower court along with the record of the case. *******