116B. Where in any trial for any offence of unlawful possession of liquor under this Act, it is provided that the accused person was in the possession of any sealed bottle bearing the original label indicating the name of any known brand of spirits, such as whisky, brandy, rum, gin, club cup, liqueurs, milk phunch, or of wines such as champagne, moselle, burgundy, chianti, white wines, clarets, hocks, riesling, meceira, ginger-wine, port type, port vermouth, sherry wincamis vibrona, manola, backfast, tonicine, or of fermented liquors such as ale, beer, milk-stout (porter), cidar, and the name of its manufacturer it shall be presumed that the accused person was in possession of liquor.
10. As per the said section, before a presumption can be raised thereunder, it is necessary to establish in evidence that the sealed bottle was bearing the original label indicating the name of any known brands of spirits and also the name of its manufacturer. It is clear on the record of the case that at least the condition regarding the manufacturer of the bottles in question has not been fulfilled in the present case. It is, therefore, not possible to raise the presumption under the said Section 116B. There is no other evidence in the case which connects the accused with the offence in question.