Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1923 (MAD)

Untitled judgment

1999-11-30

M.ANANTANARAYANAN

body1999
Order; This Revision Petition will have to be allowed, upon the established facts of the record. The case against the revision petitioner was one under section 4 (1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and we may take it that the revision petitioner had consumed six doses of tincture zinge beris, and had exhibited some symptoms suggestive of consumption of alcohol. The revision petitioner examined a private medical practitioner (D.W. 1) to show that he (the revision petitioner) complained of dyspepsia, and obtained a prescription (Exhibit D-1) for six doses of tincture zinge beris. There is also evidence that the revision petitioner purchased the stuff from a certain chemist, P.W. 2 being the proprietor of the firm. Now, the learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that, under section 16 of the Madras Prohibition Act, the Government have power to exempt certain categories of preparations containing alcohol, even in large proportions, from the operation of the Madras Prohibition Act, upon grounds of medical requirements, industrial uses, etc., nor is it denied that, in the relevant schedule, tincture zinge beris figures as one of the exempted categories. Hence, it is not an offence under section 4 (1) (j) of the Act to consume this stuff, and the learned Seventh Presidency Magistrate would appear to be labouring under a misconception that, in order to escape a conviction under section 4 (1) (j), the accused must also prove that he obtained tincture zinge beris from a source authorised to sell the stuff. That is not the case, and the learned Public Prosecutor does not deny that, while the sale of tincture zinge beris without a permit or licence by concerned chemist may be some other offence, the revision petitioner will commit no offence, so long as he takes this exempted tincture under a medical prescription. Under the circumstances, therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 4 (1) (j) of the Madras Prohibition Act has to be set aside as not substainable, and I direct accordingly. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.