IN RE K JOHNSON Vs. STATE
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-32
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 21,1955

In Re K Johnson Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BISHNATH RAI VS. REX [REFERRED TO]
S. VENKATARAMA AYYAR VS. UNNAMALAI AMMAL AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAJABATHER VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1958-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAN NAIR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1958-11-16] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner has been convicted under section 4(1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act for having been found to be in possession of two gallons of I. D. arrack and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months by the Additional Sub -Magistrate, Bhimavaram. On appeal, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bhimavaram confirmed the conviction and the sentence.
(2.)IN revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there were no mediators at the time of the seizure and that the mandatory provisions of section 103, Criminal Procedure Code, which are made applicable to all searches under the Madras Prohibition Act by reason of section 34 of the Act, have not complied with.
(3.)IN Abdullah v. The State, 1951 Mad WN Cr. 109 : (AIR 1951 Madras 883), Panchapkesa Ayyar, J., held that it is of the utmost importance that there should be satisfactory evidence before the Court regarding the article seized on a search under the Prohibition Act from each accused person. In that case there was a dispute as to what was seized and the learned Judge held that at least one of the panchayatdars to the search should have been examined in the Court to corroborate the evidence of the search officer. The learned Judge explained this case in an unreported decision in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1271 to 1276 of 1950 (on the file of the Madras High Court) where he distinguished the earlier decision and held that the rule does not apply to searches conducted in open places.
In Bishnath Rai v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 147, Seth, J., held that the provisions of section 103, Criminal Procedure Code, are very salutary provisions for the protection of the interests of an accused person and where they are departed from, the burden lies on the prosecution to explain the circumstances under which it was not possible to comply with those provisions. With these observations, I respectfully agree.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.