Vadivelu vs State

Bhaskaran, J.—The revision Petitioner has been convicted u/s 4 (1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was found in possession of five litres of coconut toddy on 6 8-1983 at 6.30 p.m. He was found guilty on his own admission by Judicial I Class Magistrate, Cuddalore and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months which is the minimum sentence for the offence.

On appeal the conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge of South Arcot in Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1983. Hence the present revision.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner that for the records having been furnished to the accused-Petitioner no acknowledgment is available. Further the accused was undefended in the trial Court and could not be voluntary. He further submitted that though the Petitioner was defended in the appellate Court, due to the absence of the counsel, the appeal was dismissed, after hearing Public Prosecutor only. It is also pointed out that though the charge is for possession of five litres of coconut toddy the material object was not produced into Court before framing of the charge. The accused was undefended, whether the admission was voluntary or riot, the material object has to be necessarily produced and it should have been available in the Court before framing of the charge. In the circumstances I feel there must be a fresh trial,

In the result the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision Petitioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law.