Can the statutory presumption of possession be applied to a junior employee who only operated the air pump in a raid on a liquor manufacturing unit?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a small manufacturing unit situated in a semi‑urban area of the state is raided by the local police after a tip‑off that illicit liquor is being produced on the premises. The raid uncovers a fully assembled copper still, a motor‑driven air pump, several sealed containers of clear liquid, and a ledger documenting the purchase of chemicals commonly used in distillation. The investigating agency records the seizure in a panchnama and forwards the material to a forensic laboratory, which confirms the presence of high‑proof spirit. The prosecution alleges that the owner of the unit, hereafter referred to as the accused, is guilty of possessing an apparatus “ordinarily used for the manufacture of intoxicants other than toddy” and of manufacturing illicit liquor in contravention of the State Prohibition Act. The accused is arrested, produced before a magistrate, and, after a summary trial, is convicted under the statutory provision that creates a presumption of guilt when a person is found in possession of such a still. The magistrate imposes a term of rigorous imprisonment and a monetary fine, and the accused is placed in custody.

In the course of the trial, a junior employee of the accused, who operates the air pump under the direction of the accused, is also named as a co‑accused. The prosecution argues that the employee’s participation in operating the pump demonstrates joint possession of the still. The defence of the employee contends that he was merely a worker performing his duties and had no control over the still or the liquor. The employee’s counsel points out that the employee never handled the still itself, nor did he have any authority to decide its use. Nevertheless, the trial court applies the statutory presumption to both the accused and the employee, refusing to consider the distinction between ownership and mere operational assistance. Both are sentenced, and the employee is placed in custody alongside the accused.

The accused files an appeal before the Sessions Court, asserting that the statutory presumption under the Prohibition Act should not attach to the employee because the legal test requires actual possession of the apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicants. The appellant further argues that the trial court failed to provide an opportunity to rebut the presumption under the provisions governing examination of the accused, thereby violating the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court, however, upholds the conviction, holding that the employee’s participation in operating the pump suffices to attract the presumption of possession.

Faced with the adverse decision, the accused seeks a more effective remedy. A plain‑language defence that the employee was merely a servant does not, on its own, overturn the conviction because the statutory presumption operates as a legal burden once the factual criteria are satisfied. The accused therefore turns to a higher judicial forum capable of reviewing the legal correctness of the lower court’s application of the presumption and of examining whether the procedural rights of the employee were curtailed. The appropriate procedural route is a revision petition under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the conviction and the sentences imposed. The revision petition is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, invoking its jurisdiction to entertain revisions arising from an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

The petition, drafted by a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, contends that the trial court erred in extending the statutory presumption to the employee without establishing the essential element of possession. It cites the legal principle that the presumption applies only when the accused is found in possession of an apparatus “ordinarily used” for the prohibited activity and that mere operation of ancillary equipment does not satisfy this requirement. The petition further argues that the employee was denied a fair opportunity to rebut the presumption because the examining magistrate did not specifically inquire about his knowledge of the still or his control over it, contrary to the safeguards enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition therefore seeks a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the High Court to set aside the conviction and to order the release of the employee from custody.

In support of the revision, the counsel for the accused references prior decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts that have held the presumption to be inapplicable where the factual matrix does not demonstrate actual possession. The petition highlights that the employee’s role was limited to operating a pump, a task that does not, by itself, confer ownership or control over the still. Moreover, the petition points out that the forensic report and the panchnama do not link the employee directly to the still; they merely document the seizure of the still and the presence of liquor. The petition therefore urges the Punjab and Haryana High Court to scrutinise whether the statutory presumption was rightly invoked and whether the lower court’s conclusion was legally sustainable.

Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court also emphasize that the High Court possesses the power to examine the legality of the conviction, especially where a statutory presumption has been applied in a manner that defeats the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” They argue that the employee’s conviction, based solely on his operational role, contravenes the doctrine that the burden of proof shifts to the accused only after the prosecution establishes the factual prerequisites of possession. The petition therefore requests that the High Court issue a writ of certiorari to quash the conviction, set aside the sentence, and direct the investigating agency to release the employee from custody.

The procedural posture of the case makes a revision petition the most suitable remedy. An ordinary factual defence—such as asserting lack of knowledge or lack of control—does not address the core legal error: the misapplication of the statutory presumption. By filing a revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused can obtain a comprehensive judicial review that examines both the legal interpretation of the presumption and the procedural fairness afforded to the employee during examination. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can correct the error of law, ensure that the statutory presumption is applied only when its conditions are satisfied, and safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused and the employee.

Consequently, the accused’s legal team prepares a detailed revision petition, citing relevant case law, statutory provisions, and constitutional safeguards. The petition is filed, and the matter is listed before a bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court, upon hearing the arguments of the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, will consider whether the conviction under the statutory presumption should stand or be set aside. If the High Court finds merit in the petition, it will issue a writ of certiorari, quash the conviction, and direct the release of the employee from custody, thereby providing the appropriate procedural solution to the legal problem presented by the misapplication of the statutory presumption.

Question: Can the statutory presumption of possession be correctly extended to the employee who only operated the air pump, given that the law requires actual possession of the apparatus used for illicit liquor manufacture?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the police raid uncovered a copper still, an air pump, sealed containers of spirit and a ledger. The employee was tasked solely with running the pump under the direction of the accused owner. The legal test for the statutory presumption demands two elements: the seized instrument must be an apparatus ordinarily used for the prohibited activity and the person against whom the presumption is invoked must be in actual possession of that apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing the intoxicant. In this case, the still satisfies the first element because it is a device customarily employed in illicit distillation. However, the employee never touched the still, never stored it, nor exercised any control over its deployment. His role was limited to operating ancillary equipment that supplies air to the still. Jurisprudence on similar statutes holds that mere assistance in a peripheral function does not amount to possession unless the assistance is coupled with dominion over the core apparatus. The employee’s lack of authority to decide the use of the still means the factual prerequisite of possession is not met. Consequently, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that extending the presumption to the employee stretches the statutory language beyond its intended scope and violates the principle that the burden of proof shifts only after the prosecution establishes the factual basis of possession. If the High Court accepts this reasoning, it must declare that the presumption cannot attach to the employee, rendering the conviction unsustainable on that ground alone. This analysis underscores that the statutory presumption is a legal burden, not a factual inference, and it cannot be applied where the essential element of possession is absent.

Question: Did the trial court breach procedural safeguards by failing to give the employee an opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption during his examination, and what are the consequences of such a breach?

Answer: The procedural framework governing the examination of an accused mandates that the magistrate must afford a reasonable chance to contest any statutory presumption that may be invoked. In the present case, the employee was examined without specific queries about his knowledge of the still, his control over it, or any evidence that might negate the presumption. The prosecution relied solely on the fact that he operated the pump to sustain the presumption. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would contend that this omission violates the due‑process guarantee embedded in the criminal procedure code, which requires that the accused be placed on record with respect to the factual elements that trigger the presumption. The failure to elicit a rebuttal deprives the employee of the opportunity to present a factual defence, such as demonstrating that his duties were limited to a mechanical task unrelated to possession. The consequence of this procedural lapse is twofold. First, it renders the conviction vulnerable to reversal on the ground of procedural irregularity, as the court cannot lawfully rely on a presumption that the accused was not afforded a chance to contest. Second, it may give rise to a claim for illegal detention, because the employee’s continued custody is predicated on a conviction that rests on a flawed examination. The High Court, upon review, is likely to scrutinise the record for compliance with the examination requirements and, if it finds a breach, may set aside the conviction and order immediate release, thereby restoring the employee’s liberty and reinforcing the procedural safeguards that protect against unjust application of statutory burdens.

Question: Is filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate remedy for challenging the conviction, and what standard of review will the High Court apply to the alleged error of law?

Answer: The procedural posture of the case shows that the employee has exhausted the appellate avenue at the Sessions Court, which affirmed the conviction. The next step is a revision petition, a remedy designed to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, without re‑examining the factual findings. The High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain such a petition when a lower court has erred in interpreting a statutory provision or in applying a legal principle. In this scenario, the alleged error concerns the misapplication of the statutory presumption of possession, a pure question of law. The revision petition therefore aligns with the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. The standard of review applied by the High Court in a revision is limited to identifying a manifest error of law; it does not re‑appraise the evidence unless the error has led to a miscarriage of justice. The court will examine whether the lower court correctly interpreted the requirement of actual possession and whether it complied with procedural safeguards during examination. If the High Court finds that the statutory presumption was applied without satisfying its factual pre‑condition, it will deem the conviction illegal and may quash it. Moreover, the High Court may issue a writ of certiorari under the constitutional provision empowering it to review inferior court decisions that contravene law. This approach ensures that the legal error is corrected while respecting the hierarchical structure of criminal adjudication. Thus, the revision petition is the proper vehicle, and the High Court’s review will focus on the legal correctness of the presumption’s application and the procedural fairness of the examination.

Question: What are the practical implications for the employee and the accused if the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes the conviction, including the effect on custody, sentence, and future prosecutions?

Answer: A quashing of the conviction by the High Court would have immediate and far‑reaching consequences. First, the employee’s incarceration would be deemed unlawful, obligating the investigating agency to release him from custody without delay. The court’s order would also expunge the conviction from his criminal record, removing any collateral stigma associated with a criminal label. For the accused owner, the quashal of the employee’s conviction does not automatically affect his own conviction, which remains upheld unless a separate challenge is raised. However, the High Court’s reasoning on the misapplication of the statutory presumption may provide persuasive authority for the accused to seek a similar relief, potentially prompting a revision or appeal against his own conviction. In terms of sentencing, the High Court’s order would nullify the term of rigorous imprisonment and the monetary fine imposed on the employee, relieving him of any financial liability arising from the conviction. The decision would also reinforce the procedural safeguards required during examination, compelling law enforcement and the prosecution to adhere strictly to due‑process norms in future cases involving statutory presumptions. Moreover, the judgment would serve as a precedent for other courts within the jurisdiction, guiding them to scrutinise the factual basis of possession before invoking the presumption. This could lead to a broader reassessment of similar convictions, thereby shaping prosecutorial strategy and judicial approach in prohibition‑related offences. Ultimately, the quashal restores the employee’s liberty, safeguards his legal rights, and signals to the criminal justice system the necessity of aligning statutory burdens with concrete factual evidence.

Question: Why does the factual matrix of the raid, the conviction of both the owner and the junior employee, and the failure to allow a rebuttal of the statutory presumption make a revision petition the most suitable remedy before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The factual matrix begins with a police raid that uncovered a fully assembled copper still, ancillary equipment and a ledger, all of which were recorded in a panchnama and later confirmed by forensic analysis. The owner of the manufacturing unit, hereafter the accused, was arrested and convicted on the basis of a statutory presumption that possession of such apparatus automatically creates guilt. The junior employee, who only operated an air pump, was also convicted because the trial court extended the same presumption to him without establishing actual possession or control over the still. The appellate route through the Sessions Court affirmed this extension, indicating that the lower courts treated the presumption as a substantive fact rather than a legal burden that must be disproved. Because the conviction rests on a legal error – the mis‑application of the statutory presumption to a person who did not satisfy the possession element – the appropriate remedy is a supervisory review that can examine the correctness of law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain revision petitions where an error of law is apparent on the face of the record, especially when the lower courts have not entertained an application for quashing under the appropriate criminal procedure provisions. A revision allows the High Court to scrutinise the trial record, the application of the presumption, and the denial of an opportunity to rebut it, without the need to re‑litigate the entire factual case. Moreover, the High Court can issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to set aside the conviction and direct the release of the employee from custody. This route is superior to a fresh appeal because the legal question is confined to the interpretation and application of the presumption, which is a matter of law, not fact. Consequently, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would be engaged to draft and present the revision, ensuring that the High Court’s supervisory powers are invoked to correct the legal error that the lower courts overlooked.

Question: How does the procedural sequence from the summary trial, through the Sessions Court appeal, to the filing of a revision petition ensure that the accused receives a meaningful opportunity to challenge the legal burden imposed by the statutory presumption?

Answer: The procedural sequence begins with the summary trial where the magistrate applied the statutory presumption without inviting the accused or the employee to explain the nature of their relationship to the still. Under criminal procedure, an accused must be given a reasonable chance to rebut any legal burden that shifts after the prosecution establishes the factual prerequisites. The subsequent appeal to the Sessions Court was limited to reviewing the factual findings and the application of the presumption, but the appellate court merely affirmed the lower court’s conclusion, thereby reinforcing the legal burden rather than reopening the issue. By filing a revision petition, the accused invokes the High Court’s power to examine whether a legal error is evident on the face of the record, independent of the merits of the factual evidence. This step is crucial because the High Court can order the trial court to revisit the examination under the procedural safeguards, compel the magistrate to have asked specific questions about control, knowledge and actual possession, and assess whether the presumption was rightly attracted. The revision also allows the accused to argue that the failure to provide such an opportunity violated the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, which is a jurisdictional ground for the High Court to intervene. In practice, the revision petition compels the Punjab and Haryana High Court to scrutinise the trial record, the panchnama, the forensic report and the examination notes, and to determine whether the legal burden was improperly shifted. If the High Court finds that the presumption was applied without a proper rebuttal, it can quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and direct the investigating agency to release the accused from custody. Thus, the procedural route from trial to revision transforms a mere factual defence into a substantive legal challenge that can only be resolved by a higher court with supervisory jurisdiction.

Question: Why might an accused or a junior employee in this case seek the assistance of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court even though the revision petition is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The accused and the junior employee may look for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court for several pragmatic reasons that complement the filing of the revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. First, the location of the investigating agency, the police station that conducted the raid, and the district court where the summary trial was held is often in the same metropolitan region that falls under the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh High Court. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court ensures that the accused has immediate access to counsel familiar with the local procedural nuances, the filing requirements of the district court, and the evidentiary standards applied during the initial investigation. Second, the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can coordinate the preparation of the revision petition, gather the necessary documents such as the panchnama, forensic report and examination notes, and liaise with the counsel who will appear before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This collaborative approach is common when the factual groundwork is laid in one jurisdiction and the supervisory review is sought in another. Third, the accused may need to file ancillary applications, such as a bail application or a request for interim relief, in the district court while the revision is pending. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can simultaneously manage these applications, ensuring that the accused remains out of custody or is released on bail, thereby preserving his liberty during the protracted High Court proceedings. Finally, the presence of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can provide strategic advice on whether to pursue parallel remedies, such as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which may be entertained by the High Court if the accused remains detained. Thus, while the ultimate supervisory review is before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the practicalities of case management, document collection and interim relief make the involvement of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court both logical and advantageous.

Question: In what way does a purely factual defence that the employee merely operated a pump fail to overturn the conviction, and why does this necessitate invoking the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction through a revision petition?

Answer: A purely factual defence asserts that the employee’s role was limited to operating an air pump and that he had no ownership, control or knowledge of the still. While this narrative addresses the factual element of possession, it does not directly confront the legal burden created by the statutory presumption, which shifts the onus to the accused once the prosecution establishes the presence of an apparatus ordinarily used for illicit liquor production. The trial court’s application of the presumption treated the factual defence as irrelevant, because the law stipulates that possession of the apparatus triggers a legal inference of guilt unless the accused can rebut it. The employee’s factual defence therefore fails to overturn the conviction because the court never afforded him an opportunity to rebut the presumption, nor did it examine whether the pump operation alone satisfies the possession requirement. This procedural deficiency is a matter of law, not fact, and can only be corrected by a higher authority that can review the legal correctness of the lower courts’ decisions. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, can assess whether the statutory presumption was rightly applied, whether the employee was denied a fair chance to rebut it, and whether the conviction contravenes constitutional guarantees of due process. By filing a revision petition, the accused invites the High Court to scrutinise the legal reasoning, to order a quashing of the conviction if the presumption was misapplied, and to direct the release of the employee from custody. This route is essential because the factual defence alone does not alter the legal burden, and only a writ of certiorari from the High Court can reset the legal balance, ensuring that the statutory presumption operates only when its conditions are satisfied.

Question: How should the defence evaluate the procedural adequacy of the employee’s examination under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and what arguments can be raised before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to demonstrate a violation of his right to rebut the statutory presumption?

Answer: The first step for the defence is to obtain the complete record of the employee’s examination, including the statement book, the charge‑sheet, and any notes made by the examining magistrate. The factual context shows that the employee was produced before the magistrate after the raid, but the record does not reveal any specific inquiry into his knowledge of the still, his control over it, or his participation in the alleged manufacturing process. Under the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to rebut any statutory presumption that may be invoked against him. The defence should therefore argue that the examining magistrate failed to fulfil this requirement because the line of questioning was limited to the employee’s duties in operating the pump, without probing whether he had any authority over the still or awareness of its illicit use. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would highlight that the omission is not a mere technical lapse but a substantive denial of the opportunity to challenge the legal burden that the presumption creates. The argument can be bolstered by pointing to precedent where the Supreme Court has held that the failure to specifically address the elements of possession during examination vitiates the application of a statutory presumption. Practically, the defence can move for a declaration that the conviction is unsustainable on the ground of procedural infirmity, seeking quashing of the sentence and release from custody. The High Court, upon reviewing the examination transcript, may find that the employee was denied the statutory right to rebut, which would constitute a breach of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. If the court accepts this line of reasoning, it can set aside the conviction, order the employee’s discharge, and direct the investigating agency to correct the procedural defect in any future proceedings. This approach also creates leverage for negotiating bail, as the procedural flaw undermines the legitimacy of the continued detention.

Question: What evidentiary gaps exist concerning the employee’s alleged possession of the still, and how can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court use those gaps to challenge the prosecution’s case?

Answer: The prosecution’s case rests on the seizure of a copper still, the forensic confirmation of spirit, and the employee’s role in operating an air pump. However, the panchnama and forensic report do not directly link the employee to the still; they merely document the seizure of the apparatus and the presence of liquor. The defence should obtain the original panchnama, the forensic lab’s chain‑of‑custody records, and any photographs taken at the scene. By scrutinising these documents, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can demonstrate that the employee’s name does not appear on any inventory, that no fingerprints or DNA of the employee were found on the still, and that the pump is a separate piece of equipment not integral to the still’s operation. Moreover, the ledger of chemical purchases is in the accused’s name, further distancing the employee from ownership. The defence can argue that the factual matrix fails the first prong of the statutory presumption – that the accused must be in possession of an apparatus “ordinarily used” for illicit manufacture. Possession, in legal terms, implies control, dominion, or the ability to direct the use of the apparatus. The employee’s limited function of operating a pump under instruction does not satisfy this requirement. By highlighting the absence of any direct physical evidence tying the employee to the still, the counsel can request that the High Court declare the presumption inapplicable. The practical implication is that, without proof of possession, the prosecution’s case collapses, and the employee’s conviction becomes vulnerable to reversal. This evidentiary strategy also supports a motion for bail, as the lack of incriminating material reduces the risk of flight or tampering with evidence.

Question: In assessing the risk of continued custody for the employee, what factors should the defence consider, and how might they structure a bail application before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The defence must weigh the seriousness of the alleged offence, the length of the sentence already imposed, the employee’s personal circumstances, and the likelihood of the High Court granting relief. The factual backdrop shows that the employee has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment alongside the accused, despite the conviction being predicated on a statutory presumption rather than concrete proof. The defence should gather documents such as the employee’s employment contract, character certificates, proof of residence, and any medical reports indicating health concerns that make incarceration onerous. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the employee is a low‑level operative with no ownership interest, that he has no prior criminal record, and that his continued detention serves no investigative purpose now that the primary evidence pertains to the still owned by the accused. The bail application should emphasise that the employee’s continued custody poses a disproportionate hardship, especially given the procedural defects identified in his examination and the evidentiary gaps concerning possession. The counsel can also cite the principle that bail is the rule and its denial the exception, particularly when the prosecution’s case is weak. By presenting a comprehensive affidavit detailing the employee’s ties to the community, his willingness to comply with any conditions, and the lack of flight risk, the defence can persuade the High Court to grant interim bail pending the outcome of the revision petition. The practical benefit of securing bail is twofold: it alleviates the immediate custodial hardship and signals to the court that the employee’s liberty is not a threat, thereby strengthening the overall strategy to overturn the conviction.

Question: What are the strategic advantages of filing a revision petition versus pursuing a direct appeal, and how should the defence frame the petition to maximise the chances of success before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: A revision petition is appropriate when the lower court’s decision contains an apparent error of law that is evident on the face of the record, such as the misapplication of a statutory presumption. In this case, the Sessions Court affirmed the conviction despite the employee’s lack of possession, an error that can be highlighted without the need for a full rehearing of factual issues. The defence should therefore draft the revision petition to focus on the legal flaw: the statutory presumption was invoked without satisfying the essential element of possession, and the employee was denied a proper opportunity to rebut the presumption during examination. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would structure the petition to include a concise statement of facts, a clear articulation of the legal error, and citations of precedent where the High Court has quashed convictions on similar grounds. The petition should attach the panchnama, the forensic report, and the examination transcript as annexures, demonstrating that the record itself reveals the defect. By seeking a writ of certiorari under Article 226, the defence can ask the High Court to set aside the conviction and direct the release of the employee. The strategic advantage lies in the expedited nature of revision, the limited scope focusing on legal error, and the ability to obtain immediate relief without waiting for a full appellate process. Additionally, the petition can request that the High Court direct the investigating agency to re‑examine the evidence, thereby creating a procedural avenue for the defence to further challenge the prosecution’s case. This approach maximises the chance of a swift quashing of the conviction and the restoration of liberty for the employee.

Question: How can the defence anticipate and counter the prosecution’s likely arguments that the employee’s operation of the pump constitutes joint possession, and what evidentiary or legal points should be emphasized in the High Court?

Answer: The prosecution will probably argue that by operating the pump, the employee exercised control over a critical component of the illicit apparatus, thereby establishing joint possession. To counter this, the defence must differentiate between functional assistance and legal possession. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasise that possession, as defined by jurisprudence, requires dominion, control, or the ability to direct the use of the entire apparatus, not merely a peripheral device. The defence should present evidence that the pump is a generic industrial tool, not unique to the still, and that its operation was performed under the direct orders of the accused, who retained ultimate authority over the still. Photographs and expert testimony can illustrate that the pump can be used in many lawful contexts, undermining the notion that its use automatically links the operator to illicit manufacturing. Moreover, the defence can point out that the employee’s employment contract limits his duties to operating machinery, with no authority over inventory or production decisions. Legally, the defence can cite cases where courts have held that mere assistance does not satisfy the possession element required for the statutory presumption. By focusing on these evidentiary distinctions and the legal principle that the presumption cannot be stretched to cover ancillary assistance, the defence can persuade the High Court that the employee’s conviction is unsustainable. This line of argument also reinforces the procedural defect in the examination, as the magistrate failed to probe the employee’s actual control over the still, further weakening the prosecution’s position.