ORDER.- Against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act by the Courts below, the above Criminal Revision has been filed. It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner was found to have been selling arrack and was in possession of 800 ml. of arrack at Thamiravarani River bed Pillaiyar temple in Tirunelveli Junction. On suspicion, the petitioner was arrested and the 800 ml. of arrack in his possession was seized and a charge under the aforesaid section was 61ed against the petitioner.- 2. When the petitioner was questioned he denied the offence. Since the petitioner denied the offence, prosecution let in evidence to prove the offence charged under the aforesaid section. For this purpose, P.W.1, Sub-Inspector was examined. The evidence of the Sub-Inspector is to the effect that he was the Sub-Inspector of Tirunelveli Palak-karai police station. On 8th July, 1976, he charge-sheeted the petitioner under section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act after enquiry. Thereafter the charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1 is so bald and does not contain any thing to show as to whether he has seized the 800 ml. of arrack, which is alleged to have been found in the possession of the petitioner. Such evidence of the police officers should be deprecated. When the prosecution wants to prosecute a person, it is the duty of the prosecution to let in evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that the petitioner has committed the offence charged against him. From the evidence adduced by the Sub-Inspector of Police, it is not made out whether the petitioner had committed the offence levelled against him or that P.W.1 has seized 800 ml. of arrack. 3. After the evidence of P.W. 1 was over the petitioner herein accepted the guilt and on the basis of the acceptance of the guilt, the Courts below convicted the petitioner and sentenced him under section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and directed that the petitioner be detained in the senior approved school for 4 years. Against the conviction and sentence, this criminal revision has been preferred. 4. Against the conviction and sentence, this criminal revision has been preferred. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that when the petitioner is charged with reference to the offence, more particularly in bis case under section 4(1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the offence committed by the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1 is such that it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the offence as alleged against the petitioner. The evidence of P.W. 1 is bald and no material particulars with reference to the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, have been proved or adduced by P.W.1. It is on this ground the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is unsustainable. 5. The further contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is, that even though the petitioner accepts the guilt that he has committed an offence but when once he has denied that he has not committed the offence and on the basis of the denial, evidence has been let in by the prosecution, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence, which is lacking in this case. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 and I am constrained to state that the officer concerned, who has let in evidence as P.W.1 has not deposed anything implicating the accused with reference to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The lower appellate Court has not considered this aspect; but has gone into the conduct of the petitioner. No doubt the conduct of the petitioner is bad and the petitioner is a vagabond as could be found from the report of the probation officer, but to convict a person under sec-tion 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt by letting in sufficient evidence, warranting conviction, which is lacking in this case. Under the circumstances, this criminal revision has to be allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below have to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. R.S. ----- Revision allowed.