MOHAMMED MIRZA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners were convicted by the trial Court under Section 4 (1) (A) of the Prohibition Act and their convictions and sentences were confirmed on appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool. In this revision petition, the point raised before me is that, the prosecution did not prove by convincing and cogent evidence that the alleged article that was seized from the petitioners, which they are alleged to be transporting, was arrack or alcohol or any prohibited article. Both the Courts below have relied on the evidence of P. W. 1, who is the Sub-Inspector and P. W. 4, who is a petty-officer of the Prohibition Department. They have stated that one tin was not sealed and when they smelt, it was found to be arrack. Then again all the seals of the other 12 tins were pierced and they also smelt of arrack". This evidence has been accepted by both the Courts below. The petitioners, while being examined by the trial Magistrate under Section 342, Cr. P. C. , denied that they were carrying on any alcohol or arrack. In this situation, the first point for consideration by the lower Courts was, whether the tins that were seized from the petitioners did really contain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document