IN RE: THANKIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was charged and convicted for an offence under S. 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100 in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months, for having distilled and manufactured illicit arrack. The case for the prosecution was that on 10th February, 1964, at about 1 p.m. there was a prohibition raid in the hill area at Pannimalai in Kaliyal village, and during that raid the Head Constable P.W. 1 accompanied by the Constable, P.W. 2, apprehended the accused (petitioner) distilling arrack in a still. He was immediately arrested and the material objects were seized under a mahazar, Ex. P -1. The wash was destroyed after taking sample. Both the Courts below have found the accused guilty, basing their finding on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. I am satisfied that the finding of guilty is correct and supported by adequate evidence. Even so, Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that as the offence in question took place in an area within the boundary limits of the State of Kerala and outside the limits of the State of Madras, there cannot be a prosecution under the provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge has overruled this objection in paragraph 7 of his judgment. The ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has held that action could be taken for an offence under the provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act is that a trial under the Act will have to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The other reason relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is that there is a corresponding provision in the Travancore -Cochin Prohibition Act, making it an offence to distil and manufacture illicit arrack on the same pattern as the Madras Act. Neither of these reasons mentioned by him has any relevance to the question to be decided. The learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the obvious thing that the Madras Prohibition Act X of 1937 extends only to the State of Madras, and it is obvious that any act of omission or commission which constitutes an offence under the Madras Prohibition Act should be committed within the limits of the State of Madras. The Act has no operation beyond the territorial limits of the State of Madras. If the same offence has been made an offence under the Travancore -Cochin Act also, it may be that the accused would be liable to be proceeded against under that enactment. But surely that is not a ground for holding that the accused is guilty of an infringement of the provision of the Madras Act. I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution in respect of an offence committed outside the State of Madras is wholly misconceived and incompetent. The revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine if paid shall be refunded.