PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case was charged with an offence under Section 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act. There was no direct proof that he consumed the liquor in any area in which the Act was in force.

(2.) The trial Magistrate convicted him on the ground that he pleaded guilty but I suspect that what he admitted was that he was found in a drunken state in the prohibited area, which was all that was stated in the charge sheet.

(3.) On that admission it would be quite legal for a Court to convict the accused if there was evidence on record that having regard to the distance between the place where he was found and the nearest place in a non-prohibited area, the accused must have consumed the liquor within the prohibited area itself. In this case, there was no such evidence.