KALA SOMAYYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six revision petitions have been filed by the six accused who have been tried of offences under section 4 (i) (6) of the Madras Prohibition Act and found guilty and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru, dismissed the appeals preferred by these accused. Hence these revision petitions have been filed by the accused.

(2.) The following facts appear from the record : On 5th June, 1960, the Circle Inspector of Police (P.W. 2) accompanied by the Sub-Inspector of Pedapadu (P.W. 3); a Head Constable and two mediators, viz., Gubbala Ramalingaswamy (P.W. 1) and Kandula Samuel (D. W. 1) conducted a raid in the outskirts of the village Ponangi in Eluru taluk. The raiding party divided itself into three batches. When they came near Thammavarai Kodu (channel), all the three batches noticed, simultaneously that the distillation of arrack was going on in the inner side of the western bund. It may be mentioned that P.W. 2 (the Circle Inspector) led a batch ; P.W. i and the Sub-Inspector led another batch ; and the Taluk Sub-Inspector led the third batch. The persons composing the three batches surrounded the accused when the accused were kindling fire. It is said that the stills of the accused were found dismantled at that time and that each of the six accused was operating, a different still. The police who thus raided noticed half-burnt fibre fuel. They seized the pots and vessels and also jaggery wash. P.W. 2, the Circle Inspector, destroyed the wash after examining it. He also took the accused into custody and handed them and the implements to the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 3). The mahazarnama (Exhibit P-1) was drafted at the time of seizure of the articles and the same was attested by P.W. 1 and D.W. 1. These mediators were taken from Eluru by the Circle Inspector along with the police party which conducted the raid. It is said that P.W. 2 (the Circle Inspector) made efforts to get other mediators from Ponangi village, but he was unsuccessful. It is also in evidence that P.W. 2 did not wait till the Head Constable, who was sent to bring mediators, returned. P.W. 2, the Circle Inspector, also followed to some distance the accused and P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector who was taking them, and then returned to Eluru on cycle. It appears that the information regarding the illicit distillation of arrack was received by, the Circle Inspector (P.W. 2) and thereafter the intimation sent by the Circle Inspector reached P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector, at 5-30 A.M. on 5th June, 1960. P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector, has mentioned that that intimation so received was to assist the Inspector in conducting the prohibition raid.

(3.) It is also necessary to notice that the police who arranged the raid left no note in the case-diary of Pedapadu police-station ; nor is this a case in which any report or information had been recorded. It is, therefore, plain that the raid has been organised by the police on their own knowledge or information otherwise made available to the police. It is, however, the case for the prosecution that after the raid was so conducted and the accused were taken into custody and the articles were seized under the mahazar (Exhibit P-i), that mahazar (ExhibitP-i) has been treated as the First Information Report and on the strength of the same, the Sub- Inspector of Pedapadu police-station (P.W. 3) thereafter registered Crime Nos. 53 to 58 of 1960 and informed the same to the concerned Magistrate. P.W. 2, the Circle Inspector, deposed that the Sub-Inspector has thus investigated into the case and filed the charge-sheet. Mr. Gangadhara Rao for the petitioners contended before me that the evidence as to the place where the accused were apprehended and the articles were seized is discrepant. Secondly, he urged that the mediators or attestors to the mahazar (Exhibit P-1) did not come from the locality and that, therefore, there has been a violation of section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code ; and thirldy the trial is vitiated as P. W. 2, the Circle Inspector, and another one of the raiding party, viz, the Striking Force Sub-Inspector, who were officers of police and had taken part in the investigation of the offence, conducted the prosecution. It may at once be pointed out that the first two points taken by the learned counsel lack, in my view, any substance. It is fairly certain from the evidence that the accused were apprehended and the articles used in the preparation of illicit arrack were seized on the inner side of the western bund of Thammavari Kodu. As regards the attestors to Exhibit P-i, it cannot be said that the raiding party committed anything illegal in taking mediators when especially they knew that the search had to be made not in the village but in its outskirts where it would not be possible to secure mediators easily. Further, it has not been shown that the accused are thereby prejudiced. The third point concerning the conduct of the prosecution by the Circle Inspector requires indeed to be dealt with in particular and will, therefore, be considered in detail hereunder. However, yet another argument of the learned counsel that the determination of the six cases by the appellate Court by a common judgment has rendered the procedure illegal needs to be mentioned only to be rejected ; for, the trial Court, it may be observed, dealt with the case of each accused separately, although it is found that the evidence in each of these cases is stereotyped. Therefore, a consideration of these cases in a common judgment by the appellate Court was not in any way calculated to cause any hardship to the accused ; and much less could it be said that the case of the accused suffered by reason of any prejudice thereby caused to them.