simpliciter of articles which can be used for the purpose of manufacturing liquor also cannot in the absence of cogent and probative indications be assumed to be possession for the purpose of manufacturing illicit liquor as to justify indictment under Sec.55(g) of the Abkari Act. I am, in these circumstances, persuaded to agree that this is an eminently fit case where premature termination of the proceedings by invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. shall be justified. Lest, there be any confusion and to disabuse any such incorrect impression which may be carried, I make it clear that it is not the law that possession of such materials by itself will not amount to an offence under Sec.55(g) of the Abkari Act. The crucial question is whether there is satisfactory allegations or materials to show that such possession was for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. I choose to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. in this case for the crucial reason that there is no worthwhile allegation or circumstances to indicate or suggest that the possession of the articles in question was for the purpose of manufacturing liquor.
