MAHIMAI DOSS AND OTHERS Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Mahimai Doss And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
K.A.Mudaliyar, J. -
(1.) IT has been challenged that the consents of M.O. 1 are not proved to be intoxicating sonti soru - There is no report from the chemical analyst based an scientific date. Certainly the police officer P. W. 1 is not an expert. There is the lack of proper proof of the contents of M. Order 1 to conclude that this comes within the term "prohibited liquor". Accused 2 and 3 were only sitting along with accused 1 who was stated to be in possession of this material. Accused 2 and 3 ought to be acquitted on the ground that conscious possession on their part was not proved. All the three accused are acquitted.
(2.) IN cases of sonti soru the prosecution ought to discharge the burden of proving the contents seized by there to be prohibited liquor in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. M. Boosanna, 1968 M.L.J. Cri. 12, as to the burden of proof which must be discharged by the prosecution. Fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.