Order.- The petitioner in this case is one Abdullah carrying on a petty betel shop business in Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore. The prosecution case was that P.W.1, a Sub-Inspector of Police, searched his shop on 1st October, 1949 and seized therefrom 10 bottles (M.O.1) suspected to contain liquor. On analysis, on 12th December, 1949, they were found to contain 14 per cent spirits. The petitioner’s contention before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, who tried him, was that the bottles seized from his shop were bottles called Jeeva Bhaskaram, a medicinal preparation exempted by the Madras Government from the operation, of the Prohibition Act and said to contain 02 per cent spirits and manufactured by D.W.1, K.B. Subramaniam, an illiterate man who submitted a bottle of this mixture to the Board of Revenue which tested it and found it to contain 02 per cent spirits, and exempted it from the operation of the Act. D.W.2, a neighbouring shopkeeper, corroborated the petitioner’s version and said that the 10 bottles seized were only bottles of Jeeva Bhaskaram. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate did not believe the evidence of D.W.2 as he was a neighbouring shopkeeper and a fellow Muslim, and might have been actuated by a desire to make the petitioner escape. He was confirmed in this belief by the fact that D.W.2 stood surety for the petitioner and got him out of jail. The lower Court held that the 10 bottles seized from the petitioner were not bottles of Jeeva Bhaskaram and must have been different bottles containing a higher percentage of spirits. It believed the evidence of P.W.1 that the bottles he seized did not have the label Jeeva Bhaskaram on them, as spoken to by the petitioner and D.W. 2. It also went on to observe that even if the bottles seized were really bottles of Jeeva Bhaskaram, the petitioner would still be liable to be convicted under the Madras Prohibition Act as, on examination by the analyst, the contents of these bottles showed 14 per cent spirits instead of 02 per cent spirits which alone had been found in the Jeeva Bhaskaram bottle submitted to the Board of Revenue and Government for exemption, and exempted from the operation of the Act. D.W.1, the maker of the preparation, said that with long keeping the spirits content of the Jeeva Bhaskaram would go on increasing. D.W.1, the maker of the preparation, said that with long keeping the spirits content of the Jeeva Bhaskaram would go on increasing. The lower Court remarked that even if that were so the petitioner would still be liable, as he should have sold them away before the spirit content increased above 02 per cent, the exempted figure. It, therefore, convicted the petitioner under section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Prosecutor contra. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged vehemently that the bottles seized were only, Jeeva Bhaskaram bottles, and not any other bottles, and that the lower Court went wrong in believing the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 that they were not Jeeva Bhaskaram bottles, especially when Munuswami Gramani, one of the Panchayatdars present at the seizure was not examined to corroborate P.W.1, and no one else also had corroborated him, and D.W.2, a neighbouring shopkeeper, had sworn that the bottles seized were only Jeeva Bhaskaram bottles. The learned State Prosecutor agreed that Munuswami Gramani ought to have been examined to corroborate P.W.1 in the circumstances of this case. I have no hesitation whatever in holding that, in the circumstances of this case, Munuswami Gramani ought to have been examined if the prosecution relied on its contention that the bottles seized were not Jeeva Bhaskaram bottles. The Madras Prohibition Act gives very great powers to searching authorities, and inflicts very severe punishment on people committing offences under the Prohibition Act. It is therefore of the utmost importance that there should be a satisfactory evidence before the Courts regarding the articles seized from each accused person. That is why search officers have to take Panchayatdars with them at the time of the search under the law, but the object of taking such Panchayatdars will be frustrated if those Panchayatdars, or one of them at least, are not examined in Court to corroborate the evidence of the search officer. It is no use saying that P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, had no motive to perjure against the petitioner. It is no use saying that P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, had no motive to perjure against the petitioner. When his statement that the bottles seized by him were not Jeeva Bhaskaram bottles were disputed, it was the clear duty of the prosecution to have examined Munuswami Gramani, the Panchayatdar, to corroborate P.W.1. Failure to do so will only lead to one result, namely, giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, and holding that the bottles seized by P.W.1 were Jeeva Bhaskaram bottles, as I do now. Now we come to the second point. I cannot agree with the lower Court that it was the duty of the petitioner to examine the contents of Jeeva Bhaskaram bottles given to him for sale by the manufacturer, D.W.1, or his agents, and to satisfy himself that those contents did not exceed 02 per cent spirits, as found in the bottle submitted to the Board of Revenue for examination before it approved its exemption. No dealer can be compelled under the law to open bottles of medicines and preparations containing a percentage of spirits and exempted from the Act, in order to see whether they contained more spirits than found by the authorities when they were exempted. In that case, every bottle of Woodwards Gripe Water and other well-known medicines will have to be opened and tested by the dealers and commission agents, who are often not qualified at all to examine the contents before they can sell them. Once the Government takes the grave responsibility of exempting any medicine or preparation from the Prohibition Act, it must take the risk of some of the bottles of that preparation so exempted containing, either deliberately or accidentally, more spirits than the bottles submitted to the Government for purpose of exemption, did. That risk will be greater in the case of country preparations, like Jeeva Bhaskaram made by the illiterate D.W.1, than in the case of standard preparations like Woodward’s Gripe Water manufactured by well-known chemists. The lower Court went further and observed that even if the spirits content of Jeeva Bhaskaram would increase by keeping, it was the petitioner’s duty to see that the 02 per cent spirits, exempted, was not exceeded. It forgot that the petitioner must find a buyer and cannot be expected to sell without finding him. The lower Court went further and observed that even if the spirits content of Jeeva Bhaskaram would increase by keeping, it was the petitioner’s duty to see that the 02 per cent spirits, exempted, was not exceeded. It forgot that the petitioner must find a buyer and cannot be expected to sell without finding him. Once the preparation is exempted, it must be taken for granted that any dealer or commission agent, like this petitioner, trading in such preparation is tree to trade in it without examination of the contents or limitation of the period of keeping unless, of course, the notification exempting the preparation prescribes these additional limitations, which is not the case here, or the dealer adds spirits himself, which also is not the case here. In the end, therefore, I give the benefit of the doubt to the petitioner and set aside his conviction and sentence, and acquit him, and direct the fine, if paid to be refunded to him. V.S. ----- Petition allowed.