STATE Vs. CHELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Chellammal has been convicted of an offence punishable under S. 4(J)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and was released after due admonition under S. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cooncor. He also directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 250 as cost of proceedings under S. 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The State has filed this appeal for enhancement of sentence on the ground that the sentence is inadequate.

(2.) The allegation against the respondent-accused was that on 22nd July, 1976, at about 20.45 hours at Badugan Thottam Forest Solai, she was found distilling arrack. On her admission, which was voluntary the learned Magistrate passed the order referred to already.

(3.) It is contended for the State that when a minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence under the Act, the order of the Magistrate releasing the respondent-accused under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, is illegal. This contention is well-founded for, the Supreme Court in Superintendent of Central Excise Bangalore v. Bahubali, 1979 MadLJ(Cri) 241 observed.