STATE Vs. S V NATESA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is from the order of acquittal of the respondent in C. C. 163/58 on the file of the District Magistrate of Palghat.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows: -

(3.) The accused admitted the sale, but maintained that what the second accused sold was not dahi but only skimmed butter milk and that the second accused was compelled by Pw. 1 to sign Exts. P1 and P2. They also stated that no witnesses were present at the time of the sale and no witnesses signed in the original of Ext. P1.