Venkatarama Ayyar J. - (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 will be convenient first to set out the impugned statutory provisions. S. 4, omitting what is not material, ruas as follows - 4 (1) "Whoever (a) imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug; or ********** (g) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the tapping of toddy or the manufacture of liquor or any intoxicating drug; or ********** (j) consumes or buys liquor or any intoxicating drug, or (k) allows any of the acts aforesaid upon premises in his immediate possession, shall be punished - ********** Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any act done under, and in accordance with, the provisions of this Act or the terms of any rule, notification, order, licence or permit issued thereunder.
(2.) It shall be presumed until the contrary is shown - (a) that a person accused of any offence under cls. (a) to (j) of sub-s. (1) has committed such offence in respect of any liquor or intoxicating drug or any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the tapping of toddy or the manufacture of liquor or any intoxicating drug, or any such materials as are ordinarily used in the tapping of toddy or the manufacture of liquor or any intoxicating drug, for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily; and (b) that a person accused of any offence under cl. (k) of sub-s. (1) has committed such offence if an offence is proved to have been committed in premises in his immediate possession in respect of any liquor or intoxicating drug or any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the tapping of toddy or the manufacture of liquor or any intoxicating drug, or any such materials as are ordinarily used in the tapping of toddy or the manufacture of liquor or any intoxicating drug". Section 28 provides that if any Collector, Prohibition Officer or Magistrate has reason to believe that an offence under S. 4 (1) has been committed, he may issue a warrant for search. Section 29 confers on certain officers power to search and seize articles even without a warrant, under certain circumstances. Section 30 provides for certain classes of officers entering any place by day of night for inspection of stills, implements, liquor and the like. Section 31 authorises the officers empowered to make entry under Ss. 28, 29 or 30, to break open any door or window and remove obstacles, if otherwise they could not make entry. Section 32 confers authority on a Prohibition Officer or any officer of the Police or Land Revenue Departments to arrest without warrant any person found committing any offence under S. 4 (1).
(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.;