IN RE: PECHIMUTHU PANDITHAN RAMASWAMI PANDITHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Kanyakumari District under the following circumstances.

(2.) IN C.C. No. 787 of 1956 on the file of the Munsif -Magistrate, Shencottah, the accused was convicted for prohibition offence, the charge being that the accused was found being drunk with toddy heavily. He pleaded guilty to the charge . The plea was accepted and he was convicted. In these circumstances, there is no need for the Magistrate to go into any other matter. The Excise Range Inspector, who is said to have produced the accused before the Magistrate, made certain irrelevant statement on which the Magistrate has acted and made certain observations about the Doctor that he gave a certificate showing that there was no smell of liquor emanating from the accused. These observations about the Doctor are totally unwarranted and irrelevant for the purpose of the case.