RAJABATHER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned 7th Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, in C. C. No. 9522 of 1958. The facts are:-- On the morning of 25-7-1958 at about 3-30 A. M. P. W. 1, the Sub inspector of Police, Otteri, on information received, raided with a party including p. W. 2, the hut of the accused in Sivashanmughapuram "a" Block, Otteri. The accused was actually kindling the fire of au oven. A copper pot M. O. 1 containing fermented wash of about a gallon was placed over the oven. A perforated mud pot m. O. 2 was placed over M. O. 1. M. O. 3 a receiver and pot was fixed on M. O. 2, which contained three drams of I. D. arrack. PW. 1 collected this in a bottle M. O. 4. Over M. O 2 was M. O. 5 a condenser. The receiver pot was placed on some bricks, M. O. 6 series. P. W. 1 dismantled the arrangements. He also found three other bottles M. O. 7 series by the side of the accused. There were 9 gallons of fermented wash in them. P. W. 2 who had been taken by the Police and who witnessed the search was present during the seizure and attested the search-list ex. P-1. The accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation the accused had been chargesheeted for an offence under Section 4 (1) (b) and (g) of the Madras Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE case for the accused was nothing more than that P. Ws. 1 and 2 were perjuring against him. He examined a defence witness who did not give any useful evidence. D. W. 1 stated that beyond seeing the accused being taken in the Police lorry that was standing outside accused's house, he did not go inside the hut or see what was being taken in the lorry. On the other hand, the evidence of D. W. 1 corroborated the prosecution version that the hut of the accused was searched in the early hours of that morning. But this need not detain us because it is for the prosecution to establish the guilt pf the accused and not for the accused to establish his innocence.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate on examining the evidence from the abovesaid point of view, held that the prosecution has affirmatively and satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused and found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to R I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. The copper pot perforated mud pot, receiver pot, the bottles and condenser exhibited were properly disposed of.