Y BALARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision on behalf of the accused against the judgment of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Gudivada, dismissing his appeal and confirming the order of the Stationary Sub -Magistrate, Gudivada, dated 4 -8 -1955, holding the accused guilty under Section 4(1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act X of 1937 and sentencing him under Section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six weeks.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the Station Officer, Gudivada, filed a charge -sheet against the petitioner for an offence under Section 4(1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act X of 1937, alleging that on 13 -5 -1955 at about 10 -30 p.m., he was found on a public high road near Gowri Shankar Cinema Hall in a state of drunkenness. He was sent to the Government Medical Officer who issued a certificate of drunkenness. The accused denied the offence and stated that the Circle Inspector and the Sub -Inspector of Police bore grudge against him and have filed a false case against him due to the influence of Shri Anugrah, formerly Circle Inspector (now under suspension) against whom he deposed in. an enquiry before the Tribunal and also due to the fact that he sent up a petition to the District Superintendent of Police against them. The prosecution examined 2 witnesses. In defence the accused produced two witnesses. The learned Sub -Magistrate on the evidence held that the accused is guilty and sentenced him to the punishment as aforesaid. On appeal the judgment of the Sub -Magistrate was confirmed. Hence this revision.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent it is contended that even though the charge -sheet and the examination of the accused was under Section 4 -A of the Act, and the accused has been convicted under Section 4(l)(.i) that would not be improper and would not help the accused unless prejudice is shown. It is next contended that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused, and both the Courts have held the accused guilty and there Is no reason why this Court should come to a different conclusion. In so far as the first point is concerned it is no doubt true that the charge -sheet and the examination of the accused do reveal an offence under Section 4 -A and the accused has been convicted under Section 4(1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act (X of 1937). But this in my opinion would not vitiate the trial. Further, it has not been shown how the accused has been prejudiced. Section 4(1) (j) reads whoever consumes or buys liquor or any intoxicating drug' and Section 4 -A reads 'whoever is found in a state of intoxication in any public place.