Judgement FACTS :- In a search made by the Prohibition Sub-Inspector of the house of the accused, he found arrack as well as articles used for distillation and also found the accused in a state of intoxication. The police prosecuted the accused for an offence under S. 4-a, Prohibition Act, and had him convicted. The police, again filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences under S. 4 (1) (a) and (g) of the same Act and he was acquitted on the ground that S. 403, Cr. P. C. was bar to a second prosecution on same facts. The State filed the appeal against the acquittal. Order. - Section 403, Cr. P. C. will not apply as under S. 403, cl. (2) the accused may be tried for a distinct offence for which a distinct charge might have been made against him in the former trial. The lower Ct. was wrong in holding that S. 403, Cr. P. C. is a bar to the present trial. However as the accused has already been convicted of the offence under S. 4-a, Madras Prohibition Act, it is unnecessary to prosecute him again under S. 4 (1) (a), Madras Prohibition Act. The ends of justice do not require the subsequent prosecution. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.