Govinda Menon, J.- This appeal by the State is against the order of the Second Class Magistrate, Cannanore acquitting the respondent (accused) who was tried for an offence under section 9 of the Kerala Prohibition Act and section 51 of the Kerala Police Act. The case against him was that at about 7-30 p.m. on 27th December, 1964 he was found in a state of intoxication on the public road at Eripuram and that he was behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner. P.W. 3 the Sub-Inspector who has deposed that he actually found the accused behaving in a disorderly manner and that he arrested him. Within half an hour of the arrest he was produced before the medical officer P.W. 1 who examined him and gave the certificate Exhibit P-1. In that certificate all the signs that he noticed have been clearly stated and he has given his opinion that the accused had consumed alcohol and was under its influence. It may be that he had not examined urine, blood, etc., but that by itself is no reason to think that he was not in a state of intoxication. The argument that he would have consumed some medicinal preparation would not help the accused as section 9 only speaks of being in a state of intoxication in any public place as distinct from a person who being permitted to consume any liquor or intoxicating drug being found in a state of intoxication in a private place. Learned Counsel referred us to an unreported decision of Justice Ramamurthi of the Madras High Court in Criminal R.P. No. 1731 of 1964. There was no discussion and the learned Judge proceeded on the concession made by the Public Prosecutor that for a person to be guilty of the offence under section 4-A of the Madras Prohibition Act it is not enough if there is mere state of intoxication, but the prosecution has also to prove that he had consumed a prohibited kind of liquor. We are unable to agree with the view taken in the case. No other decisions have been placed before us. We, therefore, accept the evidence of P.W. 1, the doctor and his certificate that the accused was in a state of intoxication, offence punishable under section 9 of the Act. We are unable to agree with the view taken in the case. No other decisions have been placed before us. We, therefore, accept the evidence of P.W. 1, the doctor and his certificate that the accused was in a state of intoxication, offence punishable under section 9 of the Act. The next question is whether the accused is guilty of the offence under section 51 of the Kerala Police Act. There is first the evidence of P.W. 2. He is apparently a disinterested witness. He has deposed that about half an hour before the accused was arrested by the Sub-Inspector the accused was found fully drunk and abusing people and the witness has stated that he was also abused in filthy language. Mere suggestion of enmity would not he sufficient. We have gone through his evidence carefully and we are unable to find any adequate reason for distrusting his testimony. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3 the Sub-Inspector who has stated that when he went there he saw the accused behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner. Learned Magistrate found fault with the Sub-Inspector for not elaborating this when his evidence is not even challenged in cross-examination. It is not as the learned Magistrate imagines a casual statement, but it is a positive and categoric statement. He suspected that the accused was drunk and that explains why he forwarded him at once to the doctor P.W. 1. Learned Counsel then argued that section 51 would apply only to a person guilty of riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour as a result of being drunk and in a case where it cannot be said that he had consumed prohibited variety of liquor the accused cannot be found guilty. We cannot agree. Section 51 of the Kerala Police Act, punishes both drunkards incapable of taking care of themselves and people guilty of riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public place, etc. The petitioner was indulging in abusing passers-by in filthy and indecent language and he was behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner in a public place. Support for this position can be had in the decision of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. in In re A. Govindaswamy1. The petitioner was indulging in abusing passers-by in filthy and indecent language and he was behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner in a public place. Support for this position can be had in the decision of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. in In re A. Govindaswamy1. Subba Rao, J., (as he then was) in In re Angamuthu2; also held that persons can be convicted under section 75 of the Madras City Polio: Act (corresponding to section 51 of the Kerala Police Act) if they are found to be guilty of any riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour. They need not be found drunk in addition to their disorderly behaviour. We are also not impressed with the argument that for an offence under section 51 the accused must be found drunk as a result of taking the prohibited variety of liquor. The finding of the learned Magistrate is clearly erroneous and I must say even perverse and has to be set aside. He was at pains to find out some reason or other for acquitting the accused. In the result we allow the appeal, set aside be acquittal of the accused and find the accused guilty and convict him of the offence under section 9 of the Kerala Prohibition Act and under section 51 of the Kerala Police Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. In view of the sentence awarded for the offence under section 51 of the Kerala Police Act, it appears unnecessary to award a separate sentence for the offence under section 9 of the Prohibition Act. Ordered accordingly. Time for payment of fine one month from this date. M.C.M. ----- Acquittal set aside; Accused convicted.