( 1 ) THE point involved in both these appeals is the same. It relates to the interpretation of Sec. 510 Cr. P. C. Both the accused who are the respondents in these two appeals were convicted under Sec. 4 (1) (a) and Sec. 4 (1) (g) of the Madras Prohibition Act (X of 1937) and sentenced to two months and four months rigorous imprisonment respectively by the trial Magistrate. The case against each of the accused was that on the 25th of October 1954 they were found in possession of liquor and also some substance which on chemical analysis was found to be fermented wash and were therefore charged under sec. 4 (1) (a) and Sec. 4 (1) (g) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The trial court found both the accused guilty as charged and sentenced them as mentioned above. On appeal, the S. D. M. of Bandar while confirming the conviction of each of the accused under Sec. 4 (1) (a) acquitted both of them under Sec. 4 (1) (g) on the ground that the report of the Chemical Examiner, which was relied on for the prosecution to prove that the material recovered from the accused was fermented, was not evidence for the reason that he was not examined in court to prove the report. The Publi