Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
BARE ACTS

Supreme Court (SC) Judgements on Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949

Bare Act Title Category / State
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Gujarat State Laws
 

List of Judgements

Macquarie Bank Limited Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. [December 15, 2017]

Judgement Date : december/2017, Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 916 SC

Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar Vs. State of Gujarat [february 22, 2013]

Judgement Date : february/2013, Citation : 2013 Latest Caselaw 156 SC

State of U.P. & ANR Vs. M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. & ANR [1991] INSC 160 (18 July 1991)

Judgement Date : july/1991, Citation : 1991 Latest Caselaw 160 SC

Headnote :

The Uttar Pradesh Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1976 modified sub-section (1) of section 3 of the United Provinces Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939, aiming to impose a purchase tax on industrial alcohol. This amendment was con...

Ayub @ Pappu Khan Nawab Khan Pathan Vs. S.N. Sinha & ANR [1990] INSC 239 (21 August 1990)

Judgement Date : august/1990, Citation : 1990 Latest Caselaw 239 SC

Headnote :

The Petitioner was held under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The grounds for detention were provided in a timely manner and referenced three criminal cases filed at different police stations. The allegations stated that the petitioner and his associates,...

Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1989] INSC 322 (25 October 1989)

Judgement Date : october/1989, Citation : 1989 Latest Caselaw 322 SC

Headnote :

Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals were filed to contest the notification dated May 31, 1979, which introduced a new rule 17(2) of the U.P. Excise Rules, establishing a vend fee. This also included amendments to section 49 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which granted the State exclusive rights i...

Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & ANR [1989] INSC 184 (5 May 1989)

Judgement Date : may/1989, Citation : 1989 Latest Caselaw 184 SC

Headnote :

The petitioner was detained based on an order issued by the detaining authority under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985, aimed at preventing him from engaging in activities detrimental to public order. The detaining authority was satisfied, based on the follo...

Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City & ANR [1988] INSC 371 (16 December 1988)

Judgement Date : december/1988, Citation : 1988 Latest Caselaw 367 SC

Headnote :

The petitioner submitted a writ petition contesting the validity of the detention order issued by the respondent under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The grounds for detention claimed that the petitioner was involved in bootlegging, using f...

Shroff & Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ANR [1988] INSC221 (12 August 1988)

Judgement Date : august/1988, Citation : 1988 Latest Caselaw 220 SC

Headnote :

The appellants were registered partnership firms engaged in the business of trading wines and spirits, and they held licenses to import and store liquors in their bonded warehouse located in Bombay. They also possessed a license issued under the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Import and Export) Rules,...

Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors [1988] INSC 162 (10 May 1988)

Judgement Date : may/1988, Citation : 1988 Latest Caselaw 161 SC

Headnote :

This appeal, made under special leave, contests the judgment of the High Court regarding a writ petition, which challenged a detention order issued by the District Magistrate against the appellant under subsection (2) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The pu...

Patel Jethabhai Chatur Vs. State of Gujarat [1976] INSC 255 (20 October 1976)

Judgement Date : october/1976, Citation : 1976 Latest Caselaw 255 SC

Headnote :

Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 holds individuals accountable for the offense of \"consuming, using, possessing, or transporting any intoxicant or hemp.\" Section 66(2)(b) establishes a legal threshold of 0.05% alcohol in the venous blood of the accused. In summary case Nos. 798...

Har Shankar & Ors Vs. The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors [1975] INSC 8 (21 January 1975)

Judgement Date : january/1975, Citation : 1975 Latest Caselaw 8 SC

Headnote :

The appellants are retail vendors of country liquor who possess licenses for selling liquor at designated locations. These licenses were awarded to them following their successful bids in auctions conducted by the Excise Department of the Government of Punjab. Specifically, the appellants in Civil A...

State of Jammu and Kas Vs. M. S. Farooqi & Ors [1972] INSC 85 (17 March 1972)

Judgement Date : march/1972, Citation : 1972 Latest Caselaw 85 SC

Headnote :

The respondent, who is part of the Indian Police Service, belongs to the Jammu and Kashmir Cadre. The Commission established under the Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act of 1962 initiated an investigation following a complaint against the respondent. The...

Ratan Lal Vs. The State of Maharashtra [1965] INSC 206 (8 October 1965)

Judgement Date : october/1965, Citation : 1965 Latest Caselaw 206 SC

Headnote :

The appellant was found guilty under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for possessing bottles of two distinct Ayurvedic medicinal preparations containing 52.3% and 54.5% alcohol, respectively, on September 21, 1960. The appellant argued that his possession of these preparations d...

Vijay Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra [1965] INSC 64 (12 March 1965)

Judgement Date : march/1965, Citation : 1965 Latest Caselaw 64 SC

Headnote :

The appellant was driving a jeep at a high speed when he crashed into a wall. Inside the jeep, there was a bottle labeled \"Tincture Zingeberis.\" A medical examination revealed that the appellant was intoxicated. He was charged under sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(1), (2), and (3) of the Bombay Prohib...

Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel & ANR Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ANR [1965] INSC 26 (8 February 1965)

Judgement Date : february/1965, Citation : 1965 Latest Caselaw 26 SC

Headnote :

The three appellants included a wholesale spice dealer, a grocery dealer, and his servant. The second appellant bought a bag of turmeric powder from the first appellant, and the third appellant, acting on behalf of the second appellant, took delivery of it. Shortly after the delivery, a food inspect...

Shyamlal Mohanlal Vs. State of Gujarat [1964] INSC 294 (14 December 1964)

Judgement Date : december/1964, Citation : 1964 Latest Caselaw 294 SC

Headnote :

The respondent, a licensed money-lender, faced prosecution for not keeping records as required by the Money-lenders\' Act and its associated Rules. The prosecution submitted a request under section 94(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Magistrate, asking for the respondent to present specific...

Pandit Ukha Kolhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra [1963] INSC 28 (11 February 1963)

Judgement Date : february/1963, Citation : 1963 Latest Caselaw 28 SC

Headnote :

The appellant was hospitalized at 6 A.M. on April 3, 1961, due to injuries from a motor accident. Upon detection of an alcohol odor, a blood sample was taken and stored in a vial. The Investigation Officer collected this vial on April 13 and sent it to the Chemical Examiner on April 18. The analysis...

Abdul Aziz Aminudin Vs. State of Maharashtra [1963] INSC 21 (7 February 1963)

Judgement Date : february/1963, Citation : 1963 Latest Caselaw 21 SC

Headnote :

The appellant, serving as the Chairman of the Powerloom Sadi Manufacturer\'s Co-operative Association, secured a license for the import of a specific quantity of art silk yarn for the Association. This license was granted with the stipulation that the imported goods were to be used solely as raw mat...

Bhagwanbhai Dulabhai Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra [1962] INSC 212 (24 July 1962)

Judgement Date : july/1962, Citation : 1962 Latest Caselaw 212 SC

Headnote :

The two appellants, who were tried alongside three others, were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate of charges under sections 65(a), 66(b), 81, and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. However, they were subsequently convicted by the High Court upon the State\'s appeal. The Magistrate determined...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Jairam [1962] INSC 61 (16 February 1962)

Judgement Date : february/1962, Citation : 1962 Latest Caselaw 61 SC

Headnote :

The respondent was apprehended by a police constable due to the smell of alcohol. A doctor who examined him testified during the trial that while the respondent had ingested alcohol, he was not intoxicated. During cross-examination, the doctor mentioned that consuming Neem could result in a blood al...

The State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) Vs. Naraindas Mangilal Agarwal & ANR [1961] INSC 296 (6 October 1961)

Judgement Date : october/1961, Citation : 1961 Latest Caselaw 296 SC

Headnote :

The respondents faced charges under sections 65(a) and 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for breaching sections 12 and 13 of the Act. The prosecution argued that the respondents transported bottles labeled as Mrugmadasav in their motor truck from the neighboring State of Bhopal into the S...

Keki Bejonji & ANR Vs. The State of Bombay [1960] INSC 203 (18 November 1960)

Judgement Date : november/1960, Citation : 1960 Latest Caselaw 203 SC

Headnote :

During the search of appellant No. 1\'s premises, a fully operational still was discovered, which was being operated by appellant No. 1 and his employee, appellant No. 2. The presidency Magistrate confirmed the presence of a working still and 516 liters of illicit liquor. When appellant No. 1 was qu...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishnu Ramchandra [1960] INSC 173 (18 October 1960)

Judgement Date : october/1960, Citation : 1960 Latest Caselaw 173 SC

Headnote :

On November 16, 1949, the respondent was found guilty under sections 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on October 5, 1957, the Deputy Commissioner of Police in Bombay issued an order under section 57(1) of the Bombay Police Act, expelling him from the Greater Bombay area. He was la...

Hari Khemu Gawali Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay & ANR [1956] INSC 39 (8 May 1956)

Judgement Date : may/1956, Citation : 1956 Latest Caselaw 39 SC

Headnote :

Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 states that if an individual is convicted of specific offenses listed in the section, \"the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has been specially authorized by the State Government, may, if they believe that the indi...

Behram Khurshed Pesikaka Vs. The State of Bombay [1954] INSC 15 (19 February 1954)

Judgement Date : february/1954, Citation : 1954 Latest Caselaw 15 SC

Headnote :

The court (as per MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE, and GHULAM HASAN JJ., with S. R. DAS J. dissenting) ruled that the Supreme Court\'s declaration in The State of Bombay and Another v. F. N. Balsara(1) rendered clause (b) of section 13 of the Bombay Prohibition Act (XXV of 1949) voi...

The State of Bombay & ANR Vs. F.N. Balsara [1951] INSC 38 (25 May 1951)

Judgement Date : may/1951, Citation : 1951 Latest Caselaw 38 SC

Headnote :

Under Entry 31 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Provincial Legislatures had the authority to legislate regarding \"intoxicating liquors,\" which included the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase, and sale of such liquors. Meanwhile, Ent...