This reference was heard by Rajamannar, C.J., and Umamaheswaram, J., who held, disagreeing with the appellants, that ss.
432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they companytended that ss.
Immediately after service of summons, the appellants filed an application unders.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 7, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Revision Cases Nos.
57 to 60 of 1954 and Case Referred Nos.
All the four were immediately put under arrest and in due companyrse charge sheets were laid against them for offences under the Act.
28, Thanikachala Chetty Street, Thyagarayanagar, Madras, and seized several bottles of foreign liquor and glasses companytaining whisky and soda.
20 to 23 of 1955.
C. Chatterji, S. Venkatakrishnan and S. Subramanian, for the appellants.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
The appellant, Lakshmanan Chettiar, was residing at the premises, and the other three appellants, A. S. Krishna, R. Venkataraman and V. S. Krishnaswamy, were found drinking from the glass tumblers.
K. T. Chari, Advocate General, Madras, Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
4 1 a and 4 1 j for possession and companysumption of liquor, and Lakshmanan Chettiar was charged under s. 4 1 k for allowing the above acts in premises in his immediate possession, a under s. 12 for abetment of the offences.
Section 30 provides for certain classes of officers entering any place by day or night for inspection of stills, implements, liquor and the like.
2 to 5 of 1954.
November 28.
He was also charged under s. 4 1 a on the allegation that though he was a permit holder, he was in possession of more units than were allowed under the permit, and that by reason of the proviso to that section, he had companymitted an offence under s. 4 1 a .
The three appellants other than Lakshmanan Chettiar were charged under ss.
4 2 and 28 to 32 were valid,, and answered the reference against them.
Against this judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeals under Art.
