IN RE: KALIYAN ALIAS MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
In Re: Kaliyan Alias Muthusamy
Click here to view full judgement.
Sathar Sajeed, J. -
(1.) THE accused, aggrieved by the judgments of the Courts below, is the petitioner in the above Criminal Revision Petition.
(2.) THE accused was charged under S. 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on the ground that on 17th November 1976 at 4 -45 p.m., he was found selling arrack at the road junction of Akkarapatti. It is the case of the prosecution that the Sub Inspector of Police, Mallasamudram, who is P.W.2 in this case, was accompanied by the Village Munsif (P.W.1) and the police party were going for detection of prohibition offences in the village. At the road junction of Akkarapatti, according to the prosecution, one Abdul Kadar was found to have been in a drunken state and when questioned as to wherefrom he has consumed arrack, he gave out the information, and on the information furnished by him, the police party proceeded to Anaipillaiarkoil and near the northern wall of the said temple, it was found that the accused was sitting and selling arrack to one Palaniappa by taking it from an aluminium deksha, for a sum of Rs. 2/ -. P.W.1 surrounded the accused and recovered from his possession the aluminium deksha covered with a cloth which is M.O.1. The said M.O.1 was found to contain one litre of arrack. The prosecution has also recovered from the said place M.O.2 a white bottle, M.O.3, a honey coloured bottle, M.O.4 a glass tumbler and M.O.5 an aluminium tumbler. When the accused was interrogated, it is the case of the prosecution, he has produced the sale proceeds of arrack which was in his possession which are also marked as M.O.6 to M.O.10 series. The arrack and the M.Os. as aforesaid were seized under Ex. P1 in the presence of witnesses. It is the further case of prosecution, that the accused and others, who had consumed arrack, were also arrested. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case against the accused under S. 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
(3.) THE accused when questioned by Court, denied the offence and he has examined one witness apart from himself. According to the accused, at the relevant time of his arrest, he was grazing cattle in his field and four constables from Mallasamudram police station came there and took the accused away stating that the Sub Inspector of Police wanted him. He further stated that the police has foisted a false case against him due to prior enmity and that he was not selling arrack or prohibited alcohol as alleged by prosecution.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.