PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. M RANGAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal' of accused I, 2 and 4 in C.C. No. 1874 of 1952 on the file of the Stationary Sub: Magistrate, Allagadda. The case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 3 were carrying 15 rins of arrack in a car M.D.U. 184 belonging to the fourth accused, At about 2-45 A.M. on 12th September, 1952, the car was stopped by the Prohibition Sub-Inspector, Sirvel, examined as P.W. 1. Charges framed against the accused were under sections 4(1) (a) and 12 of the Madras Prohibition Act. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate did not accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused. The Public Prosecutor of Andhra has consequently preferred the appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution rests upon the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exhibit P-1, a statement recording the confessions of accused 1 to 3. P.W. 3 who signed Exhibit P-1 stated that by the time he went to the place where the car was stopped, he found that the tins were all on the road. His evidence is that he did not see the tins being seized in the car. He also stated that he did not know the contents of Exhibit P-1 and that he signed it after the panchanama was written. His evidence is therefore of no assistance to the prosecution. P.W. 1 is the Prohibition Sub-Inspector and P.W. 4 is the Police Sub-Inspector. Their evidence was not accepted by the Sub-Magistrate as being interested. I see no reason to differ from his conclusion. So, the only question is, whether the evidence of P.W. 2 is sufficient to convict the accused of the offences charged. It is elicited in the evidence of P.W. 4 that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are stock panchayatdars. P.W. 2 also admits that the prohibition people generally call him and that he would sign panchanamas it is in evidence that there are a number of independent persons residing near the locality. Their signatures were not. at all obtained. In the cross-examination P.W.2 stated that P.W. 4 also signed Exhibit P-i. In the re-examination, he no doubt corrected himself and stated that the signature of P.W. 4 was not obtained. Similarly, he stated in the cross-examination that the signatures of accused 1 to 3 were obtained in Exhibit P-1. Having regard to the discrepancies in his evidence the Court below refused to accept his evidence. Having gone through his evidence, I am not prepared to place any reliance and reverse the judgment of the Court below. The Magistrate accepted the evidence of the Khaji Sab, examined as D.W. 1. He deposed that he was brought to the place at 4 A.M. and that by the time he went there the tins were already on the road. It is brought out in the evidence that a lorry passed along the road and that the car of the one Kondayya also passed along that road. It was suggested in the course of the cross-examination that the tins might have been recovered from the lorry or Kondayya's car and kept on the road. In the absence of clinching evidence that the tins were in the car of the fourth accused I am unable to hold that the accused are guilty of the offences charged.

(3.) Great reliance was placed on Exhibit P-1 containing the statements of accused 1 to 3. The Court below held that the document was inadmissible on the ground that the Prohibition Officer was a Police Officer and that the statement recorded by him were inadmissible. The view of the magistrate is no doubt wrong, having regard to the decision of Mr. Justice Somasundaram in Srinivasa .Narasimha Bayanker v. State, (1954) M.W.N. 659.