Judgment :- The main point that is urged on behalf of the accused/revision-petitioner herein is that the prosecution witnesses are interested in the case inasmuch as the other witnesses than P.W. 1 are subordinates to P.W. 1, except the medical officer and the police official, and they have only given evidence in support of the prosecution to oblige the prosecution. It is further submitted that the evidence adduced through D.Ws. 1 to 5 had been rejected by the trial Court without assigning proper reasons, and in turn, the lower appellate Court also has not properly appreciated the evidence in the light of the defence put forward on behalf of the revision-petitioner herein before both the Courts below. In other words, it is submitted that the lower appellate Court is wrong in confirming the conviction of the revision-petitioner herein under S. 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 reads as follows :- "4-A. Whoever is found in a state of intoxication in any public place and whoever, not having been permitted to consume any liquor or intoxicating drug in pursuance of this Act, is found in a state of intoxication in any private place, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees. Provided that - (a) for a first offence, such rigorous imprisonment shall not be - (A) less than three months in the case of any person other than a public servant; or (B) less than six months in the case of a public servant and such fine shall not be less than one-thousand rupees; (b) for a second of subsequent offence, such rigorous imprisonment shall not be -(A) less than six months in the case of any person other than a public servant; or (B) less than one year in the case of a public servant and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees." * 2. It is relevant in this connection to note that the main contention that is urged on behalf of the revision-petitioner herein is that only after registering a case against the revision-petitioner herein, Ex. P-1 had been created on behalf of the prosecution. It is relevant in this connection to note that the main contention that is urged on behalf of the revision-petitioner herein is that only after registering a case against the revision-petitioner herein, Ex. P-1 had been created on behalf of the prosecution. It is further contended that this contention raised on behalf of the revision-petitioner was not rejected by the trial Court; but the revision-petitioner herein had been acquitted of the charge of attack on P.W. 1 that he had obstructed P.W. 1 from discharging his duties as a public servant. The contention raised further in this case on behalf of the revision-petitioner is that when once the revision-petitioner had been acquitted of that charge, the case put forward on the basis of the same alleged transaction, the prosecution of the revision-petitioner herein under S. 4-A of the Act is unsuitable and against law. I am unable to uphold the above contention raised on behalf of the revision-petitioner because when two charges have been framed in a case against the accused, it is not as if that merely on the ground of acquittal under one of the charges, the case proved under the other charge should also fail. In the instant case before us, the case of the prosecution against the revision-petitioner so far as the charge under S. 4-A of the Act is concerned, is that on 30-6-1982 at about 6.05 p.m., when P.W. 7 Dr. Anbalagan, medical officer attached to Government Hospital, Coimbatore, examined P.W. 1 Narayanaswami and issued Ex. P-6 wound certificate relating to the abrasion on his right forehand, and that on 1-7-1982 at about 1.15 a.m., P.W. 6 Dr. Subramaniam examined the accused/revision-petitioner herein and expressed the opinion that the revision-petitioner was under the influence of drink during that time, and in this regard he had issued Ex. P-5 certificate. It is also relevant to note that the case of the prosecution is that the accused/revision-petitioner is assessor in the officer of the Chennanur Supervisor's Office, Pykara Division, and P.W. 5 Thangavel, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Pykara Division, issued Ex. P-3 order on 10-3-1982 suspending the revision-petitioner from service. P.W. 1 Narayanaswami was an Engineer in Tatabar of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board during the relevant period. At 4.30 p.m., on 30-6-1982, the revision-petitioner came there, and he was staggering due to the influence of drink during that time. P-3 order on 10-3-1982 suspending the revision-petitioner from service. P.W. 1 Narayanaswami was an Engineer in Tatabar of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board during the relevant period. At 4.30 p.m., on 30-6-1982, the revision-petitioner came there, and he was staggering due to the influence of drink during that time. He repeated the words -and beat on the right cheek of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 struck the calling bell. P.W. 2 Mayilsami, P.W. 3 Damodaran and P.W. 4 Venkatachalam came running to that place. The revision-petitioner also took M.O. 1 tray and beat P.W. 1 with it, as a result of which P.W. 1 sustained an injury in his right hand. P.W. 1 gave complaint to P.W. 8 Sub-Inspector of Police, and P.W. 8 registered a case against the revision-petitioner in Crime No. 955 of 1982 under S. 338, I.P.C., and S. 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. M.O. 1 was seized under Ex. P-2 mahazar. On 30-6-1982 at about 6.05 p.m., P.W. 7 examined P.W. 1 and issued Ex. P-5 wound certificate, as already mentioned. P.W. 6 examined the revision-petitioner at 1.15 a.m., on 1-7-1982 and issued Ex. P-5 certificate to the effect that the revision-petitioner was under the influence of drink during that time. After completing the investigation, P.W. 8 filed charge sheet against the revision-petitioner under S. 332, I.P.C., and S. 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 3. The revision-petitioner herein denied the offence when he was examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., and according to him, he was enquired regarding the order of suspension, and that he was taken to the police station from his house. The trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the offence under S. 332, I.P.C., has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted him. The trial Court found the revision-petitioner herein guilty under S. 4-A of the Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial Court, the accused/revision-petitioner preferred C.A. No. 228 of 1983 before the lower appellate Court, namely, the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division at Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial Court, the accused/revision-petitioner preferred C.A. No. 228 of 1983 before the lower appellate Court, namely, the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division at Coimbatore. The lower appellate Court also, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the same conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the revision-petitioner is guilty under S. 4-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower appellate Court, the accused has come forward with this criminal revision case. 4. As already stated, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision-petitioner, inter alia, contends that the confirmation of both the conviction as well as the sentence under S. 4-A of the Act is not correct and in accordance with law. It is relevant to note that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have deposed relating to the attack on P.W. 1 by the revision-petitioner. P.W. 7 has stated in his evidence that P.W. 1 was having injuries. Ex. P-6 is the wound certificate issued by him relating to the same. We are now concerned, in the instant case before us, only about the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision-petitioner under S. 4-A of the Act. In other words, we have to examine the evidence available on record whether the revision-petitioner was under the influence of drink during the time he was alleged to have consumed drink. It is strenuously contended on behalf of the revision-petitioner that there was no test performed by the medical officer who had opined that the revision-petitioner was under the influence of drink, taking his urine or blood. I am unable to uphold this contention because soon after the production of the revision-petitioner before the medical officer, he was examined by the medical officer relating to the consumption of drink or not and a valid certificate has been issued by him. There is absolutely no ground for rejecting the contents of the said certificate or the evidence unfurled through the said doctor. This aspect of the case been fully discussed by both the Courts below. This Court does not find any ground for disturbing the concurrent finding that the revision-petitioner herein was under the influence of drink during the time of occurrence as well as during the time of his examination by the medical officer. This aspect of the case been fully discussed by both the Courts below. This Court does not find any ground for disturbing the concurrent finding that the revision-petitioner herein was under the influence of drink during the time of occurrence as well as during the time of his examination by the medical officer. The specific evidence of P.W. 1 that the revision-petitioner herein was coming inside his room staggering. P.W. 1 is a responsible officer, and there is absolutely no motive for him to falsely implicate the revision-petitioner in this case. P.W. 2 has also stated in his evidence that the revision-petitioner was under the influence of drink during the relevant time. The medical evidence in this case corroborates the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 6 the doctor had examined the revision-petitioner on 1-7-1982 at 1.15 a.m., and opined as follows in Ex. P-5 certificate :- "Breath smell of arrack present. Disoriented. Talk incoherently. Unable to appreciate the objects. Unable to stand or walk steadily. Unable to recollect the past events." * It is relevant to note that P.W. 6 had not been cross-examined at all in this case. Under the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to the offence under S. 4-A of the Act, in turn confirmed by the lower appellate Court is correct and in accordance with law. This Court does not find that the sentence imposed by the trial Court and in turn confirmed by the lower appellate Court is in any way excessive or severe, under the circumstances. 5. There is no infirmity in the judgment of lower appellate Court. Hence the criminal revision case is dismissed.