AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 100 wordsK. N. Mudaliyar, J.
The petitioner is entitled to an acquittal on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, Dr. G. Srinivasan who states in his evidence that he does not know whether arrack contain of alcohol, His further evidence is that if a large quantity of old sugarcane juice is taken, it may give a smell of arrack. This material part of his evidence would admit of a doubt to be given in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is acquitted. The fine, if paid ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.