HORWILL
The Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Marimuthu Gounden – Respondent
Horwill, J.
1. It appears that the Excise authorities had reason to suspect that illicit distillation was going on in a certain area and posted a number of Sub-Inspectors and peons in various parts of a forest at the early hours of the morning in the hope of detecting illicit distillation. At about 6 A.M. P.Ws. 1 and 2 detected the accused preparing wash for the purpose of distilling arrack. They then took the accused to the Excise Circle Inspector who charged them with having been in possession of 19 gallons of fermented wash fit for illicit distillation and asked them what they had to say. Each admitted the offence saying that they prepared the wash for distilling arrack for their private use at Deepavali. The Magistrate who tried these accused acquitted them on the ground that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was not supported by that of such disinterested witnesses who could have been procured and also because he thought that although the accused had made a confession, yet it was not safe to rely on it, as it was retracted in Court.
2. The Crown appeals on the ground that there are no sufficient reasons for acquitting the accused; and the learned Public Prosecutor contends t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.