In Re: Chinna Sandhanam

Anantanarayanan, J.—This is a reference by Ramaswami, J. arising from the facts of the case. The learned Judge felt that there was need for an authoritative pronouncement upon the point involved. The revision petitioner was convicted under S. 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act for the alleged offence of rendering potable and fit for human consumption as illicit liquor, a bottle of varnish in his possession. The point raised was whether the revision petitioner could be convicted under S. 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act, when according to his learned Counsel, the offence was strictly punishable under the Rules framed under S. 16(1) of the Act, for which the maximum penalty is provided under S. 16(2) of the Act. Ramaswami, J. felt that the decision of this Court in Amir Sultan v. State 1957M.W.N. Crl. 42 which laid down the proposition that an offence committed in respect of the transport of denatured spirit contravening certain rules framed under S. 16 could be dealt with only as an infringement of those rules and not under S. 4(1)(a) of the Act, had to be distinguished upon its facts, and did not apply to the present situation. We have now scrutinised this matter, in the light of the recent amendments to the rules, and the actual position in law appears to us to be quite clear and free from any difficulty. The position is as follows. With reference to the rules framed under S. 16(1) of the Act as they originally stood, R. 10 laid down that "no person shall render or attempt to render varnish fit for human consumption." Under R. 11, a breach of all or any of the rules promulgated was liable to be punished with imprisonment which might extend to six months or with fine which might extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both. Undoubtedly, had R. 10 stood unaltered, the present offence would also fall within the ambit of that rule, and, upon the broad principle of Amir Sultan v. State 1957 M.W.N. Crl. 42 referred to earlier, would be punishable only under the rules, and not under S. 5 or any other section of the Prohibition Act itself. Apparently, the authorities realised this position and were anxious that this particular infringement should be punishable under S. 5 of the Act, as it directly constitutes an offence within the meaning of S. 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act. Consequently, the authorities eliminated the rules set forth by us earlier, and substituted therefore a note to the following effect--"the rendering or attempting to render any spirit or preparation containing spirit which has been denatured fit for human consumption......is punishable under S. 5 of the Act." Further, as these rules amended in 1959 stand, this particular act of rendering a preparation containing spirit which has been denatured, fit for human consumption, is not a breach of the rules, and is not punishable under the rules per se.

That being so, the legal position is very clear that this Act is punishable under S. 5 of the Prohibition Act alone, since it is clearly an offence within the ambit of the section. The present revision petitioner would certainly have a case, if he had committed the offence before the rules were amended, and when this offence constituted a breach of the rules punishable under those rules. Admittedly he has not done so, and he committed the offence only after the elimination of this offence from the scope of the rules. Consequently, the Courts below were perfectly justified in holding that the offence was punishable under S. 5 of the Act alone and in dealing with the revision petitioner accordingly. The conviction must therefore be confirmed, and the sentence does not appear to us to be excessive or to merit any interference. The conviction and sentence are confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.