Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay.reference Under Article 145(3) of the
In short. The case of Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs. The State of Bombay revolves around the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, specifically section 13(b). The Supreme Court of India held that part of section 13(b) was unconstitutional as it affected the consumption of liquid medicinal or toilet preparations containing alcohol. The court ruled that this part of the statute was unenforceable, thus impacting the prosecution's burden of proof in cases involving the consumption of alcohol. The court emphasized that once a law is declared unconstitutional, it ceases to have legal effect.
Facts
The case originated from a criminal appeal concerning the enforcement of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner, Behram Khurshed Pesikaka, was charged under section 66(b) of the Act, which penalizes the consumption of prohibited alcohol. The High Court of Bombay had previously upheld the charges against him. The Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of section 13(b) of the Act, particularly in light of the earlier decision in The State of Bombay and Another v. F. N. Balsara, which had declared part of this section void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioner argued that the part of section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, which was declared unconstitutional, rendered the prosecution's case invalid. He contended that the mere smell of alcohol could not be sufficient evidence of guilt, as it could arise from the consumption of medicinal or toilet preparations that were not prohibited. The court addressed these arguments by affirming that the prosecution bore the burden of proving that the alcohol in question fell under the enforceable part of the statute.
Respondent Arguments
The respondent, the State of Bombay, argued that the smell of alcohol was indicative of a violation of the prohibition laws. They maintained that the petitioner should be held accountable under the existing provisions of the Act. The court critiqued this argument by highlighting that the prosecution must establish that the alcohol was of a type that was prohibited under the enforceable part of section 13(b), thus shifting the onus onto the state.
Precedents considered
The court cited the case of The State of Bombay and Another v. F. N. Balsara, which established that part of section 13(b) was unconstitutional. This precedent was crucial in determining that the unenforceable part of the statute could not be used against the petitioner. Other cases referenced included Kesava Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay and Rangarao Bala Maize v. The State, which further supported the court's reasoning regarding the burden of proof and the implications of constitutional invalidity.
Legal principles
The court considered the legal principle that once a statute is declared unconstitutional, it is null and void and cannot be enforced. This principle is rooted in Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. The court also emphasized the importance of the prosecution's burden to prove that the alcohol in question was prohibited under the enforceable part of the statute.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that the declaration of unconstitutionality rendered part of section 13(b) ineffective, thus affecting the prosecution's ability to secure a conviction based solely on the smell of alcohol. The court criticized the notion that the mere presence of alcohol could automatically imply guilt, asserting that the prosecution must provide clear evidence linking the alcohol to the prohibited category.
Outcome
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring that the part of section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was unconstitutional and unenforceable. The court ordered that the prosecution could not rely on the invalidated provisions to establish guilt. The judgment effectively nullified the charges against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove the nature of the alcohol consumed.
Conclusion
This judgment has significant implications for the enforcement of prohibition laws in India, particularly regarding the burden of proof in cases involving alcohol consumption. It reinforces the principle that once a law is declared unconstitutional, it cannot be applied, thereby protecting citizens from unjust prosecution under invalid statutes.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.