IN RE: VELLA PINNA THEVAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is convicted for offences under Sections 4(1) (a), 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(g) of the the Madras Prohibition Act. No separate sentences -were passed for the offences under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(g) of the said Act.

(2.) ON the occurrence night, at about 5 a.m. P.W. 1 found four people distilling arrack in a disused well. Out of the four persons, two ran away from the scene. The petitioner and one Sakkarai were arrested and were brought to the police station on 9th March, 1969, at about 5 a.m., or a little later. The wash and the distilled arrack and other articles of contraband were seized and brought to the station and all these have been marked before the trial Court.

(3.) A legal ground has been raised for quashing the conviction under Section 4(1)(a). The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the prosecution will have to establish that the articles seized from the accused were liquor under Section 3 (9) of the Act. Distilled arrack has not been subjected to scientific analysis by a Chemical Examiner. The learned Counsel bases his argument on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Madiga Boosenna and Ors., (1968) 1 S.C.J 160 :, (1968)1 M.L.J 57 :, (1963) l An.W.R. 57 :, (1968) M.L.J. 12. This argument has considerable force. Inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove that what has been seized from the accused is ' liquor', the conviction under Section 4(1)(a) is set aside.