The duty of the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the presence of a poisonous substance in the arrack, and the consideration of harm caused by the arrack in determining sentences.

The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment, dated 15.11.2002 in S.C.No.280 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Chennai-1, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, also convicted for the offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also convicted for the offence under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences imposed on the appellant-accused were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(a) The respondent-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Guindy Unit, Chennai, filed the charge sheet against the appellant-accused in Cr.No.1718 of 2001, stating that the accused possessed 35 litres of country arrack in three plastic cans with intoxicating drugs with poisonous substance, stating that on 26.10.2001, P.W.1 Sathish, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.2 Selvam Head Constable and one Tamilarasi, Sub-Inspector of Police while raid was conducted at Annai Sathya Nagar at 9 a.m.

(b) At that time, the persons who were consuming drugs, attempted to escape from the place, but the Women Sub-Inspector of Police Tamilarasi immediately caught hold of the accused, and others escaped from the place. Then, they followed the procedures and seized the samples as per the provisions of law. Two 500 ml. bottles from each can totalling six samples, have been taken as per Ex.P-2 mahazar in the presence of P.W.2 Selvam, Head Constable and one Ethiraj, Constable and after obtaining permission from the superior officer, the remaining arrack has been destroyed. The destruction mahazar is Ex.P-6.

(c) Then, they returned to Police Station and P.W.1 Sathish, Sub-Inspector of Police, gave complaint, which was received by P.W.4 Muniyandi, Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, and a case was registered in Cr.No.1718 of 2001 and Ex.P-1 F.I.R. was prepared for the offences under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

(d) At the time of search, M.O.1 Rs.50/- and M.O.2 Rs.10/- (totalling Rs.60/-) have been seized from the accused. Two ever-silver tumblers were also seized and they were marked as M.Os.3 and 4. The sample bottles were marked as M.O.5. series.

(e) Ex.P-7 requisition was made by the investigating agency to send the material objects for chemical analysis. P.W.3 Tamilselvi conducted chemical analysis and gave Ex.P-4 report, stating that the samples contained 8.89 mgm. of atropine.

(f) After concluding the investigation, P.W.4 Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the

Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

3. The trial Court posed questions on the appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and she denied the charges. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked and M.Os.1 to 5 were produced. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as indicated above.

4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant-accused would contend that the trial Court has not considered non-examination of Tamilarasi, the Sub-Inspector of Police who accompanied for the raid and made search on the accused and seized the materails, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are Police officials and P.W.3 is the Chemical Analyst and no independent witness was examined. On the basis of only the official witnesses, wh