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: Public Prosecutor

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Chennai Decided Sep 06, 1950
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/793720

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Cri. Appeal No. 623 of 1950
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- - FACTS In a soarch 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.

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 403 and 403(2); Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 - Sections 4(1) and 4A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Public Prosecutor

Advocate Party-in-person

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 403 and 403(2); Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 - Sections 4(1) and 4A
Reported In
AIR1951Mad716

Excerpt

- - facts in a soarch 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.ordersomasundaram, j.factsin a soarch 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 under section 4-a, prohibition act, & had him convicted. the police again filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences under section 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.1. section 403, cr. p. c. will notapply as under section 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 under section 4-a, madras prohibition act, it is unnecessary to prosecute him again under section 4 (1) (a), madras prohibition act. the ends of justice do not require the subsequent prosecution. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Somasundaram, J.

FACTS

In a soarch 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 under Section 4-A, Prohibition Act, & had him convicted. The police again filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences under Section 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.

1. Section 403, Cr. P. C. will notapply as under Section 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 under Section 4-A, Madras Prohibition Act, it is unnecessary to prosecute him again under Section 4 (1) (a), Madras Prohibition Act. The ends of justice do not require the subsequent prosecution. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial