Judgment :- Crl.R.C.No. 86 of 1991 is directed against the order of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No. 254 of 1990 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi in S.C.No. 241 of 1989 for the offence under Sec. 4 (1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 and Crl.R.C. No. 499 of 1991 is directed against the order of District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in O.A.No. 19 of 1989 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C. No.48 of 1987 for the offence under Secs. 4(1)(A) and 7 read with Sec. 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000. 2. In the first revision case mentioned above, the prosecution case is that on 12. 1989 when the Sub-Inspector of Police went for a raid he found the revision petitioner in possession of 5 litres of illicit arrack for sale at about 5 p.m. near Seranmadevi Ammanathan Koil Street near river and after seizure of the arrack the analyst has found that it contained the poisonous substance and therefore, he was prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 4(1)(A) of the Prohibition Act. 3. In the other revision, the prosecution case is that on 27. 1988 the revision petitioners sold the illicit arrack containing the poisonous substance in the house of the first revision petitioner to Nagaraj, Annamalai and Swaminathan and the sample taken from this contraband seized was sent for chemical analysis which revealed that it contained the poisonous substance and therefore, these revision petitioners were prosecuted for the offences under Secs. 4(1)(a) and 7 read with 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 4. The trial Judges found them guilty of the abovesaid offences and in Revision No.86 of 1991 the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 whereas in Revision No. 499 of 1991, the revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appellate courts also have confirmed the findings. Hence, these revisions have been filed by the accused persons. 5. 5,000. The appellate courts also have confirmed the findings. Hence, these revisions have been filed by the accused persons. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners have put forward three points in these revisions viz., the analysis report without any particulars whether the poisonous substance found in the arrack was likely to cause death or grievous hurt; secondly no independent witness was examined on the prosecution side and thirdly as the police officer who initiated the F.I.R. himself had done the investigation and filed the charge-sheet, it is against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. 6. With regard to the first contention, Sec. 4(l)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act reads: “Where in the case of an offence falling under clause (a) clause (b), clause (h) or clause (j) of Sub-Sec. (1) the liquor or any intoxicating drug involved contains any ingredient which is likely to cause death or grievous hurt to the consumer, then the offender, on conviction shall be punished.” Therefore, according to this section the intoxicating drug should contain an ingredient which may be poisonous and was likely to cause death or grievous hurt to the consumer. In the first revision case, the sample taken from the contraband seized was sent to the Analyst who has sent his report Ex.P-5 which reads that the Sample contained Atrophine which is a poisonous Alkaloid found in Datura. In the other revision case No.499 of 1991 also Ex.P-5 is the Analyst’s Report, which reads that the sample contained Chloral Hydrate which is an intoxicating poisonous substance. Beyond this there is no other detail with regard to the poisonous substance found in the contraband seized from the revision petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that for the reason that the Atrophine and Chloral Hydrate, which are poisonous substances were found in the sample taken from the arrack seized from the revision petitioners it cannot be presumed that those substances were likely to cause death or grievous hurt to the consumer. The section requires that the ingredient of the sample was of the nature which was likely to cause death or grievous hurt and as there is no evidence that the Atrophine and Chloral Hydrate were in the nature of causing death or grievous hurt, no offence is made out under Sec. 4(1)(A) of Prohibition Act. The section requires that the ingredient of the sample was of the nature which was likely to cause death or grievous hurt and as there is no evidence that the Atrophine and Chloral Hydrate were in the nature of causing death or grievous hurt, no offence is made out under Sec. 4(1)(A) of Prohibition Act. This argument cannot be lightly considered and as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner unless the poisonous substance seized was in the nature of causing death or grievous hurt offence under Sec. 4(1)(A) is not made out. Therefore, in this case the prosecution has not established the case against the revision petitioners for the offence under Sec. 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. However, the first report of the Analyst dated 22. 1989 annexed along with Ex.B-5 shows that the substance seized from the revision petitioner contained methyl alcohol. Therefore, it attracts the punishment for the offence under Sec. 4(1)(A) of the Prohibition Act. In the other revision Ex.P-5 does not reveal that the substance seized from the revision petitioner contained properties of Alcohol or arrack. The report refers only to the poisonous substance. Therefore, the revision petitioners in that case cannot be convicted even under Sec. 4(l) (A) of the Prohibition Act. 7. The learned counsel would contend that no independent witness has been examined in these cases and only the investigating officer who filed the complaint and his subordinate policemen have been examined and therefore, the prosecution version cannot be accepted. If no witness was available in the place where these substances were seized, I cannot hold that the case of the Prosecution should be thrown out, for non-examination of the independent witness. Therefore, this ground raised by the learned counsels cannot be accepted. With regard to the third ground raised by the learned counsels, I find that the Officer who lodged the complaint and registered the F.I.R. himself has done the investigation and filed the charge sheet. In revision case No.86 of 1991 the Sub Inspector of Police by name Chellasamy, Seranmadevi Police Station had filed the complaint for the abovesaid offence. The very same officer has examined the witnesses and had filed the charge sheet. In revision case No.86 of 1991 the Sub Inspector of Police by name Chellasamy, Seranmadevi Police Station had filed the complaint for the abovesaid offence. The very same officer has examined the witnesses and had filed the charge sheet. Similarly in the other revision also the Inspector of Police by name Arumugham had filed the F.I.R. and examined the witnesses under Sec. 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the officer who filed the complaint had himself investigated and filed the charge sheet. This practice has been condemned by the Supreme Court and also our High Court as the allegation of the Officer who registered the F.I.R. will be simply supported by him if the same officer takes upon the case for investigation because he may not record the Statement against his own version. In Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1976 Crl.L.J. 713, the Supreme Court has observed that the Head Constable who lodged the First Information Report himself did the investigation and it was an infirmity in the Prosecution Case. In Gholtu Modi v. State of Bihar, 1986 Crl.L.J. 1031, the Patna High Court has held that when the officer who launched the complaint himself and taken up the investigation, the officer cannot be impartial while investigating the case and therefore, the prosecution must fail. In Singaravelu v. State, 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 336. This Court also has considered this practice in a revision case for offence under Sec. 75 of the City Police Act and as the Sub Inspector of Police after giving the complaint F.I.R. himself had taken up the investigation and filed the charge-sheet and also deposed before the court it was held that the procedure followed by him was illegal and, the prosecution must fail. In the light of these decisions, as the officers who launched the complaint and F.I.R. themselves had taken up the investigation in these cases and filed the charge sheet, naturally these was no chance for verification of the correctness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. by an independent investigation Officer and the Officer who lodged the complaint would have been naturally interested in securing the evidence to support his version and it cannot be stated that his approach was unbiased. Therefore, following the above decisions, I take the view that the procedure followed by the investigating Officers in these cases is illegal and the prosecution story cannot be accepted. In view of this infirmity the prosecutions are bound to fail. 8. In the result, in both the revisions setting aside the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners are acquitted. The revisions are allowed. The fine amount if paid shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds are cancelled.