Judgment This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Villupuram. The respondent was prosecuted before the Second-Class Magistrate for an offence under section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found at about 9-30 a.m. on 22nd June, 1953 in possession of a pot containing arrack. P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector, saw the accused carrying a pot and P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are guards caught hold of him. P.W. 1 says he examined the pot and found it to contain two gallons of arrack. He called it “French arrack” because he suspected it came from French territory. The accused was then put up before the Magistrate for trial for the offence of possession of arrack. The first Court convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acquitted him on two grounds. The first ground is that there is no proof that this arrack is liquor, mentioned within the meaning of the Prohibition Act. Liquor has been defined as one including toddy, spirits, etc., and all liquid consisting of and containing alcohol. In the opinion of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate there is no proof that arrack contains alcohol. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has overlooked the fact that the Court can take judicial notice of what arrack is. Arrack undoubtedly contains a good percentage of alcohol. It is enough that it is proved that it is arrack. It will certainly fall within the definition of liquor in the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is entirely in the wrong in asking for a further proof about alcohol contents of the arrack. Once it is found to be arrack, it must be held that it falls within the definition of liquor and therefore the accused will certainly be liable for possession. The view of the Magistrate that further proof is necessary to show that arrack contains alcohol is wrong. The second ground on which the learned Magistrate has acquitted is that he is not satisfied with the evidence of P.W. 1. He says he is not prepared to believe in toto the evidence of P.W. 1. No valid reasons have been given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to disbelieve P.W. 1. Mr. The second ground on which the learned Magistrate has acquitted is that he is not satisfied with the evidence of P.W. 1. He says he is not prepared to believe in toto the evidence of P.W. 1. No valid reasons have been given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to disbelieve P.W. 1. Mr. Vishnu Mohan appearing as amicus curiae for the accused contends that he is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be accepted in toto. I do not think all Prohibition Sub-Inspectors can be called interested witnesses merely because they are carrying out the provisions of the Act. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate for disbelieving P.W. I are neither sound nor convincing. At the same time the offence having taken place in or about May, 1953, and as the evidence of P.W. 1 has been disbelieved, though not for good reasons, I do not think the ends of justice require that at this distance of time the appeal should be reversed. The State is only anxious to correct the wrong view the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has entertained regarding the necessity of proving that arrack contains alcohol. In the circumstances I do not think that the appeal should actually be reversed. Having made the observations about the wrong acquittal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, I do not think it necessary to reverse it. I would therefore confirm the acquittal, but not for the reasons given by the Magistrate, but for the reason that at this distance of time the acquittal need not be reversed and the accused be convicted. I am indebted to Mr. Vishnu Mohan for the assistance rendered by him to Court. R.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.