IN RE: RATHINAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Section 4(1)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act for consuming liquor. The evidence of the doctor, who examined the petitioner, is that the pupils of the accused were dilated reacting to light sluggishly and that there was smell of arrack in the breath. On this evidence he was convicted. It is contended before me that the doctor was not authorised under Section 41-A, and therefore his evidence should not be acted upon. It is conceded that the doctor was not authorised under Section 41-A. But the fact he is not authorised does not mean that the evidence he gave is inadmissible. Section 41-A of the Madras Prohibition Act is intended to compel persons to be taken to a doctor and any resistance of submission to an examination entitles the persons to certain penalties according to the provisions of the section. Although under Section 41-A the police shall take him to a doctor, who is authorised, still the evidence given by the doctor, who is not authorised, does not become inadmissible. There is, therefore, no force in the contention.

(2.) There is another point in the case which though not raised deserves consideration. That is the prosecution has not established that the symptoms exhibited by the accused are symptoms, which must necessarily arise from the consuming of prohibited alcohol. The Supreme Court in Behram Khurshed Pesikaka V. State Of Bombay, 1955 1 MadLJ 32 has pointed out as follows: