The court emphasized that disorderly behavior in a public place, irrespective of the type of liquor consumed, constitutes an offence under S.51 of the Kerala Police Act.

1. 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 S.9 of the Kerala Prohibition Act and S.51 of the Kerala Police Act. The case against him was that at about 7-30 p.m. on 27-12-64 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. Pw.3 the Sub Inspector 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 Pw.l who examined him and gave the certificate Ex. 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 S.9 only speaks of being in 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 Cr. R.P. 1731/64. 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 S.4A 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 Pwl. the doctor and his certificate that the accused was in a state of intoxication, an offence punishable under S.9 of the Act.

2. The next question is whether the accused is guilty of the offence under S.51 of the Kerala Police Act. There is first the evidence of Pw2. 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 be 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 Pw-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 Pw 1.

3. Learned counsel then argued that S.51 would apply only to persons 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. S.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. Govindaswamy (AIR. 1950 Mad. 31). Subba Rao, J., (as he then was) in In re Angamuthu (AIR. 1949 Madras 474) also held that