Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. Perumal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Mad260; (1947)2MLJ327
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentPerumal and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....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.4. in the absence of such evidence, i do not think it proper that the accused should be convicted on his admission that he was found drunk within a prohibited area5. with these remarks, the appeals are dismissed.
Judgment:

Rajamannar, J.

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.

4. In the absence of such evidence, I do not think it proper that the accused should be convicted on his admission that he was found drunk within a prohibited area

5. With these remarks, the appeals are dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //