CHINNA SANDHANAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of a Jutka Driver who had in his possession a bottle of varnish made palatable and potable as illicit liquor. The point raised by Mr. Sathiadev was also raised in the Court below, namely, whether the petitioner could not be punished for infringement of the rules framed under Sec. 16 or whether he should be punished under Sec. 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act. It makes a lot of difference to the accused because if it is an infringement of rules, the maximum penalty is six months. If, on the other hand, it is an infringement of the Act, the minimum punishment itself is six months.

(2.) It is no doubt true that this question indirectly arose in a Bench decision of this Court reported in Hussain Bee Vs. State, (1955) M.W.N. 559 : Cr. 143 and in another single Judge's decision in Amir Sultan Vs. State, (1957) W.M.N. 162 : Cr. 42.

(3.) In both those cases the point arose in another fashion and not as here where an ordinary citizen who is permitted to keep a little amount of varnish probably to paint his jutka or furniture in his house has converted it into an illicit liquor making it potable by adding some substance. The considerations which weighed with the Judges in those two cases may not arise at all here.