MURUGAN ALIAS THANNASI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision sought to be preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sub-Magistrate of Udamalpet In C. O. No. 2776 of 1956 which were confirmed by the learned District Magistrate of Coimbatore in C A. No. 56 of 1957.

(2.) ON information received apparently that the accused was indugling in illicit distillation activities the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 1, proceeded to the village of the accused, arrested him and enquired him. The accused took the Sub-Inspector to a place in front of his house and pointed out a spot. It was dug up and M. O. 1 a pot with fermented wash kept buried' there was taken out. The accused was charged' for an. offence under Section 4 (1) (G) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The offence having been proven, the conviction and sentence of a fine of Rs. 8u followed.

(3.) THE two points taken before me are that when the Sub-Inspector had proceeded to the village on information received apparently that the accused was indulging in illicit distillation activities, the information given by the accused to the Sub-Inspector leading to "the discovery would amount to a repetition of the information already received which could not be considered as leading to a discovery coming within the purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and secondly that the place wherefrom the pot M. O. l was taken out was accessible to the public and therefore exclusive possession of this incriminating article cannot be brought home to the accused.