IN RE: BHOOPATHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision proceeding involves a question of some interest with regard to the applicability of Section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act to the established facts of this case. As far as the evidence is concerned, we may take it as proved that Head Constable 981 (P.W. 1) stopped and searched the revision petitioner and recovered from his person a bottle (M.O. 1) containing 8 drams of denatured spirit mixed with water which according to the Head Constable (P.W. 1) had been rendered potable. P.W. 1 is corroborated ,by P.W. 2. Further, we have the report of the Analyst attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory to the effect that the liquid contained 37.7 per cent of proved spirit and that it was varnish upon which an attempt had been made as to render it potable by adding water and sodium chloride.

(2.) NOW , under Section 5 of the Act:

(3.) IN the light of the record, I do not think that the conviction under Section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act can be sustained. On the contrary, the very facts establish the offence under Section 4(1)(a), namely, of possession of liquor or an intoxicating drug; so much is indisputably established. Accordingly I allow the revision to the extent of altering the conviction into one under Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, with reference to possession of liquor. The law does not require, unlike the case of an offence under Section 5 of some other category of Section 4(1)(a), that a minimum sentence should be imposed for this offence. This revision petitioner has already served out an appreciable period of the sentence actually imposed (rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 50). Hence, the sentence under Section 4(1)(a) will now be the period of imprisonment already undergone by the revision petitioner and a fine of Rs. 50 or rigorous imprisonment for one month in default. Time for payment of fine three weeks.