Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Marutha Pillai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 30, 1915
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/792243

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Madras Abkari Act (I of 1886) - Arrack--Possession of arrack below normal strength--Offence. - - It is common ground that a depot-keeper like the accused is allowed to have arrack of U.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Marutha Pillai

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1916Mad1226(1); 30Ind.Cas.158

Excerpt

madras abkari act (i of 1886) - arrack--possession of arrack below normal strength--offence. - - it is common ground that a depot-keeper like the accused is allowed to have arrack of u.orderseshagiri aiyar, j.1. i am unable to uphold the conviction in this case. it is common ground that a depot-keeper like the accused is allowed to have arrack of u.p. 32 degrees. when the cask was examined on the 16th january 1914, the arrack in it was of the strength of u.p., 32'5. the question for decision is whether this weakening in the strength of the arrach to the extent of five pints is due to dilution. exhibit a, the license in the case, shows that it is possible that arrack may lose strength to the extent of one degree from natural causes. further, when the assistant commissioner sealed the cask on the 28th april 1914, he found the arrack to be u. p. 314. when the cask was produced in court and examined on the 23rd july it was found to be 318. there is no suggestion that the seals were tampered with between these two dates. it has also to be remembered that there had been heavy sales before the date of the offence. it is more likely that the difference of live pints was due to constant exposure cm account of the frequent sales. i think the accused is at least entitled to the benefit of the doubt arising in this case.2. the conviction against him is reversed, the line, if already paid, will be refunded. the cask will be returned to the accused; if it has been sold, its price should be paid to him.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. I am unable to uphold the conviction in this case. It is common ground that a depot-keeper like the accused is allowed to have arrack of U.P. 32 degrees. When the cask was examined on the 16th January 1914, the arrack in it was of the strength of U.P., 32'5. The question for decision is whether this weakening in the strength of the arrach to the extent of five pints is due to dilution. Exhibit A, the license in the case, shows that it is possible that arrack may lose strength to the extent of one degree from natural causes. Further, when the Assistant Commissioner sealed the cask on the 28th April 1914, he found the arrack to be U. P. 314. When the cask was produced in Court and examined on the 23rd July it was found to be 318. There is no suggestion that the seals were tampered with between these two dates. It has also to be remembered that there had been heavy sales before the date of the offence. It is more likely that the difference of live pints was due to constant exposure cm account of the frequent sales. I think the accused is at least entitled to the benefit of the doubt arising in this case.

2. The conviction against him is reversed, the line, if already paid, will be refunded. The cask will be returned to the accused; if it has been sold, its price should be paid to him.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial