A S KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for decision in these appeals is whether Ss. 4 (2), 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Madras Prohibition Act No. X of 1937, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are unconstitutional and void.

(2.) It shall be presumed until the contrary is shown -

(3.) Now, the facts are that on November 18, 1953, the Prohibition Officer, Madras City and the Deputy Commissioner of Police made a search of premises No.28, Thanikachala Chetty Street, Thyagarayanagar, Madras and seized several bottles of foreign liquor and glasses containing whisky and soda. The appellant, Lakshmanan Chettiar, was residing at the premises, and the other three appellants, A. S. Krishna, R. Venkataraman and V. S. Krishnaswami, were found drinking from the glass tumblers. All the four were immediately put under arrest and in due course, charge-sheets were laid against them for offences under the Act. The three appellants other than Lakshmanan Chettiar were charged under Ss.4 (1) (a) and 4 (1) (j) for possession and consumption of liquor, and Lakshmanan Chettiar was charged under S.4(1) (k) for allowing the above acts in premises in his immediate possession, and under S. 12 for abetment of the offences. He was also charged under S. 4 (1) (a) on the allegation that though he was also charged under S. 4 (1) (a) on the allegation that though he was a permit-holder, he was in possession of more units than were allowed under the permit; and that by reason of the proviso to that section, he had committed an offence under S. 4 (1) (a). Immediately after service of summons, the appellants filed an application under S. 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they contended that Ss. 4 (2) and 28 to 32 of the Act were repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution, and were therefore void, and prayed that the above question might be referred for the decision of the High Court. The Third Presidency Magistrate before whom the proceedings were pending, allowed the application, and referred to the High Court as many as seven questions on the constitutionality of various sections of the Act. This reference was heard by Rajamannar, C. 3 and Umamaheswaram J. who held, disagreeing with the appellants, that Ss. 4 (2) and 28 to 32 were valid, and answered the reference against them. Against this Judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeals under Art. 136 of the Constitution.