MAHADEVAYYA VEERABHADRAYYA HIREMATH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under S. 59(b) of the Mysore Prohibition a and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 by the trial Court. The prosecution case is that on 14-7-1962 at about 7 P.M., the petitioner was found in possession of a bottle of country liquor. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Dhar war confirmed the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and restrained the fine of Rs. 500. The petitioner has come up in revision against the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Dharwar.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged 4 points before me. They are: (1) the report of the Chemical Engineer, Exhibit P-5, is inadmissible does not contain the data or particulars necessary in helping the Court to accept his opinion. (3) There was undue delay in the examination of the bottle alleged to contain liquor and as such it is not safe to act on the report of the Chemical Examiner. (4) The sentence of fine of Rs. 500 is too severe.

(3.) Taking the first point, the contention of the petitioner's counsel is that Exhibit P-5, the report of the Chemical Examiner, is inadmissible in evidence as it has not been duly proved. The argument is that under the Mysore Prohibition Act, a report of the Chemical Examiner is admissible in evidence, without the Chemical Examiner being examined, only as per S.86 of the Mysore Prohibition Act. Section 86 says: