Ramaswami Gounder, J. - The accused has preferred this revision to this Court against his conviction under section 4-A of the Madras Prohibition Act 1937 both by the Sub-Magistrate, Tiruchengode, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sankari in appeal, and sentence of a fine of Rs. 100. That section lays down that whoever is found in a state of intoxication in any public place. . . .shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs.1000 or with both. While the Legislature has made intoxication in a public place a punishable offence, it is somewhat surprising that it has not taken care to define what intoxication means. In the absence of any statutory definition we will have to adopt its ordinary etymological meaning, namely, a condition produced by excessive use of alcoholic stimulants, as defined in Dorland’s American Medical Dictionary. It will be seen that section 4(1)(j) also provides that whoever consumes-----liquor or any intoxicating drug shall be punished with imprisonment and fine, and so, the offence under section 4-A appears to be an aggravated form of the offence under section 4(1)(j). In this case, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged.

The only material evidence on which the lower Court came to that conclusion was that of the rural medical practitioner (P.W. 2), who examined the accused on his production by the Head Constable at about 2-15 A.M. on 16th March, 1955; and on such examination, the doctor observed the following symptoms: (1) smelling of arrack in the breath: (2) redness of the eyes and dilation of pupil; (a) tongue clean and dry: (4) speech incoherent; and (5) staggering gait. On those symptoms, the doctor formed the opinion that the accused had consumed liquor and was under its influence. The learned counsel for the accused contended that those symptoms did not necessarily lead to the only conclusion, namely that the accused was under intoxication; and he further contended that about that time the accused was taking some medicinal preparations containing slight alcohol under the prescriptions of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Bhavani examined as D.W. 1, and that the symptoms observed might be due to the accused taking those medicines. The doctor, D.W. 1 gave evidence that in October, 1954, he examined the accused and found that he was suffering from asthma and chronic bronchitis. He prescribed the mixture and some tonic as mentioned in his prescriptions, Exhibits D. 1 and D. 2. The medicine prescribed by him and also the tonic contained slight alcohol, the tonic containing 12% of alcohol. The doctor gave evidence that if the mixture and tonic were taken together, the smell of alcohol would continue for an hour. Thus, the smelling of arrack in the breath observed by P.W. 2 was sought to be explained. But then, as the accused was examined by P.W. 2 at 2-15 A.M. the accused must have taken the medicine and the tonic at about 1 A.M. when he was arrested; and I am not sure whether at that hour of the night the accused took his medicines. As regards the redness of the eyes, D.W.1 stated that even at the time of the trial, the eyes of the accused were red: and, of course, the redness in the eyes might be due to various other causes. The doctor also deposed that asthmatic mixture makes the tongue dry. Even assuming that on the evidence of D.W.1 the symptoms such as smelling of arrack in the breath, redness of eyes, tongue clean and dry, might be explained as being due to the accused taking the asthmatic mixture and tonic, the other two important symptoms, namely, incoherent speech and staggering gait, will have to be explained. In regard to that, the doctor, D.W.1 stated that his asthmatic mixture consisted of bromide, iodide, ammonium carbonate, spirit, etc., and that he has also prescribed phenobarbitone and morphia. His evidence, further, was that morphia produce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document