The Public Prosecutor vs Perianna Goundan and Another

Lakshmana Rao, J.—This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondents of offences u/s 4, Clause (1)(a)

and (i) of the Madras Prohibition Act.

The first respondent was a toddy renter at Thumbankurichi till the introduction of prohibition in the District of Salem, and the second respondent

is his son. They are stated to have possessed and offered illicit arrack for sale on 14th November, 1937 and the evidence of P.W. 5 the Circle

Inspector which was hot seriously challenged in this Court shows, that on information that the first respondent was clandestinely selling illicit arrack

in the shed in his field at Thumbankurichi, the witness proceeded to the village with a party. P.W. 2 the Village Munsiff joined them at

Thumbankurichi and the party went to the shed of the first respondent. The Circle Inspector noticed the respondents offering two bottles of arrack

to P.Ws. 3 and 4, and on seeing the police party the respondents and P.Ws. 3 and 4 took to their heels. The respondents had each a bottle with

him and the first respondent ran westwards. The second respondent ran eastwards and they were pursued. P.Ws. 3 and 4 stopped after running

some distance and the first respondent was caught. The second respondent escaped and M. Os. 2 (a) and 2 (&) the bottles thrown away by the

respondents during the pursuit were seized. The first respondent was taken back to the shed and questioned, and M. Os. 1 and 1 (a) the bottles

containing illicit arrack were produced by him from inside the shed. He was arrested and released on bail, and the second respondent was arrested

later.

There was no sale of liquor though it was offered for sale and the respondents were rightly acquitted of the offence u/s 4, Clause 1(i) of the

Madras Prohibition Act. But the first respondent would unquestionably be guilty u/s 4, Clause (1)(a) of the Act and the real question is whether the

second respondent can be said to have possessed the liquor. He is the undivided son of the first respondent aged about 19 years, and the evidence

against him is that he offered a bottle to his father''s customers along with the father. This would hardly warrant a finding of possession and his

acquittal is right.

The acquittal of the first respondent is therefore set aside and he is convicted u/s 4, Clause 1(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act.

As regards sentence the offence was committed in November, 1937 and a substantive sentence of imprisonment is not called for at this distance

of time. The first respondent is therefore sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment to rigorous imprisonment for six weeks.