ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act by the Courts below, the above Criminal Revision has been filed. It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner was found to have been selling arrack and was in possession of 800 ml. of arrack at Thamiravarani River bed Pillaiyar temple in Tirunelveli Junction. On suspicion, the petitioner was arrested and the 800 ml. of arrack in his possession was seized and a charge under the aforesaid section was 61ed against the petitioner. -

(2.) WHEN the petitioner was questioned he denied the offence. Since the petitioner denied the offence, prosecution let in evidence to prove the offence charged under the aforesaid section. For this purpose, P.W.1, Sub -Inspector was examined. The evidence of the Sub -Inspector is to the effect that he was the Sub -Inspector of Tirunelveli Palak -karai police station. On 8th July, 1976, he charge -sheeted the petitioner under section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act after enquiry. Thereafter the charge -sheet was laid against the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1 is so bald and does not contain any thing to show as to whether he has seized the 800 ml. of arrack, which is alleged to have been found in the possession of the petitioner. Such evidence of the police officers should be deprecated. When the prosecution wants to prosecute a person, it is the duty of the prosecution to let in evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that the petitioner has committed the offence charged against him. From the evidence adduced by the Sub -Inspector of Police, it is not made out whether the petitioner had committed the offence levelled against him or that P.W.1 has seized 800 ml. of arrack.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that when the petitioner is charged with reference to the offence, more particularly in bis case under section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the offence committed by the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1 is such that it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the offence as alleged against the petitioner. The evidence of P.W. 1 is bald and no material particulars with reference to the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, have been proved or adduced by P.W.1. It is on this ground the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is unsustainable.