THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. PERUMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in this case was charged with an offence under Section 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act. There was no direct proof that he consumed the liquor in any area in which the Act was in force.

(2.) THE trial Magistrate convicted him on the ground that he pleaded guilty but I suspect that what he admitted was that he was found in a drunken state in the prohibited area, which was all that was stated in the charge sheet.

(3.) IN the absence of such evidence, I do not think it proper that the accused should be convicted on his admission that he was found drunk within a prohibited area