AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Somasundaram, J.
FACTS
In a search made by the Prohibition Sub-Inspector of the house of the accused, be found arrack as well as articles used for distillation & also
found the accused in a state of intoxication. The police prosecuted the accused for an offence u/s 4-A, Prohibition Act, & had him convicted. The
police again filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences u/s 4(1)(a) & (g) of the same Act & he was acquitted on the ground that Section
403, Cr.P.C. was bar to a second prosecution on same facts. The State filed the appeal against the acquittal.
Section 403, Cr. P. C. will not apply as u/s 403, Clause (2) the accused may be tried for a distinct offence for which a distinct charge might
have been made against him in the former trial. The lower Ct. was wrong in holding that Section 403, Cr. P. C. is a bar to the present trial.
However as the accused has already been convicted of the offence u/s 4-A, Madras Prohibition Act, it is unnecessary to prosecute him again u/s 4
(1) (a) , Madras Prohibition Act. The ends of justice do not require the subsequent prosecution. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.