DUSARI VEERRAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision on behalf of the accused against the Judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Peddapuram, dated 31-10-1955 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Magistrate.

(2.) The facts which give rise to this petition are : The accused were charged under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Madras Prohibition Act 10 of 1937, The allegation was that on 13-7-1955 at about 11.30 a.m. the head constable of Veleshwaram Police Out-post deposed to receiving the information that illicit distillation was being done in the puntha leading from Appanapalam to Narendrapatnam. He proceeded to that place and on arrival at the scene of offence, he found the petitioners working a still, On seeing the raiders, the petitioners tool, to their heels. The still was dismantled, and the articles were seized. The prosecution examined 3 witnesses. The accused did not produce any defence evidence. The Sub-Magistrate on the evidence produced found the accused guilty under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Madras Prohibition Act 10 of 1937 and convicted them as aforesaid. On appeal by the accused, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the finding) of the Sub-Magistrate. Hence this revision.

(3.) In this revision, learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the case of Syed Madar Sahib v. State of Andhra, 1956 ALT 185 (A), contended that the trial was vitiated under Section 495 (4), Cr. P. C. by reason of the fact that the officer who investigated the case conducted the prosecution and the Courts below have over-looked this matter. The learned Public Prosecutor in reply contended that this point was not taken up in the Courts below. He next urged that unless the accused shows that he has been prejudiced thereby, the trial would not be vitiated.