The requirement under Section 32(c) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, to draw samples of illicit liquor in the presence of a Prohibition Officer or a Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector is mandatory to prevent manipulation of evidence.

PRAYER :-

To call for the records in SC No.878 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner alone.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in SC No.878 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner alone.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2021, at about 11.30 a.m., while the second respondent, along with his team, was conducting prohibition rounds near Railway Road at Nanguneri, the petitioner herein was allegedly found in possession of eight bottles of 180 ml McLene Brandy and two half bottles of the same brand, which were mixed with a poisonous substance known as “atropine”, harmful to human life, for the purpose of increasing intoxication and earning unlawful profit, and with the intention of selling the same to the public at a higher price before the opening of the TASMAC shop; and that on enquiry, it was further found that the petitioner/second accused had purchased the liquor bottles in bulk from TASMAC. The petitioner and the second accused were charged with the offence under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.

3. Mr.S.Srikanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, for implicating the petitioner for the offence under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, on the allegation that he had mixed a poisonous substance known as “atropine”, the mandatory provision to be complied with by the police is that the samples of the liquor should be drawn only in the presence of the Prohibition Officer or a Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police, and that the remaining illicit liquor has to be destroyed. However, in the instant case, the sample of the liquor in question was drawn by Head Constables and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination. Such an exercise is not mandated under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, and the same will not stand the scrutiny of law. On this ground, the final report is liable to be quashed.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon the order of this Court in Selvi v. State, rep. By the Inspector of Police, Namakkal , reported in 2011 (2) MWN (Cr.) 623, and prays for quashment of the final report.

5. Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent, submits that the petitioner and the second accused purchased liquor bottles and mixed atropine in the said liquor to increase intoxication; that mixing of atropine, except for medical use, would amount to poisoning; that the samples of the said liquor were subjected to forensic examination and were found to contain atropine, as reported by L.W.4, the Scientific Officer, who, in his statement recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated that there was mixing of atropine in the liquor, and therefore, the petitioner is liable for the offences punishable under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, and prays for dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition.

6. The issue that arises for consideration in this Criminal Original Petition is whether the police has violated the mandatory provisions in this case.

7. This issue is already covered by the order of this Court in Selvi case (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court in the said order had observed as follows:

“10. A close reading of the above third p