DEVANATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition, and the judgment of the lower courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Kannappa Rajendran, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and the petitioner not appearing in person or by Advocate, the court made the following order. The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 306 of 1983 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Villupuram was found guilty under Section 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), convicted there under and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five weeks. As against the said conviction and sentence, he preferred the appeal in C.A. No. 144 of 1983 on the file of the Sessions Court, Cuddalore The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, confirmed the conviction and sentence, giving rise to this revision petition.

(2.) The short facts are: The police officials P.W. 1 and 2 were watching for prohibition offences at 9 A.M on 8-1-1983 in Kumarapuram Road near Narjamma temple situated at that particular place. They found the revision petitioner standing with a plastic can M.O. 1 in his hand. On suspicion, the plastic can was seized and it was found to contain 15 litres of fermented coconut toddy. The toddy destroyed in the spot itself. They prepared a mahazar, Exhibit P-1 evidencing the destruction of the toddy. There was no independent witness available at that time. Hence the mahazar was attested by the police officials themselves. The revision petitioner was arrested and subsequently taken to the police station and a case in Crime No. 34/83 of Prohibition and Enforcement Wing. Cuddalore was registered for the offence under Section 4(i)(a) of the Act. After investigation, a report under Section 173, Cri. P.C. against the revision petitioner was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Villupuram for the offence under Section 4(i)(a) of the Act appeared to have been committed by him.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was found absent and nobody made any representation on his behalf. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard.