IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 213 of 2000 ----------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 173 OF 1990 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION. S.T..1553/1990 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM CRL. APPEAL. NO. 83 OF 1995 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM. ) REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- THOMAS @ SUNNY, S/O. MATHEW, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKANAM, PEERMADE, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM, WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT. M.K. PREMALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. No.213 of 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R -------------- Revision petitioner faced trial in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottayam for offence punishable under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act (for short, “the Act”). Charge is that on 31.5.1990 at about 2.05 p.m. revision petitioner was found drunk on the MC road in front of the Press Club uttering obscene words and obstructing vehicular traffic. It is further alleged that at that time revision petitioner was incapable of taking care of himself on account intoxication. Learned magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and payment of fine of Rs.1,500/-. Revision petitioner preferred an appeal but it was not successful. Hence this revision. 2. Heard counsel for revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor 3. Counsel for revision petitioner contended that the basic ingredient to attract the offence under Section 51(a) of the Act is not proved by the prosecution. According to the counsel, none of the occurrence witnesses stated that revision petitioner, on account of CRL. R.P. .NO.213 of 2000 -: 2 :- intoxication was incapable of taking care of himself. It is further contended that P.W.1 has not stated the day of the incident or even identified the revision petitioner. 4. P.W.1 is a Police Constable and was on traffic duty at Gandhi Square on the date of incident. At about 2.05 p.m. he saw the revision petitioner coming along the public road in front of the Press Club towards north. Revision petitioner was uttering obscene words. He obstructed the traffic. P.W.1 asked the revision petitioner to move away but he refused. Revision petitioner again used obscene words. P.W.1 took the revision petitioner to the police station and produced him before the Sub Inspector with Exhibit P1 report. P.W.2 is an autorikshaw driver and claimed that the incident occurred at about 2.05 p.m. According to P.W.2, revision petitioner obstructed the traffic and uttered obscene words near the Press Club. P.W.1 asked revision petitioner to move away but he refused. Revision petitioner blocked the vehicular traffic and thereon, P.W.1 took the revision petitioner to the police station. In cross-examination P.W.2 stated that his autorikshaw was remaining at the stand as he could not take it out due to the block of vehicles on account of the obstruction created by the revision petitioner. P.W.3 is another CRL. R.P. .NO.213 of 2000 -: 3 :- autorikshaw driver. He saw the police taking a person but since he saw only the back side of that person, he could not identify him. P.W.4, medial officer stated that he examined the revision petitioner on 31.5.1990 at 3.00 p.m. at District hospital and issued Exhibit P2. P.W.4 was of the opinion that revision petitioner had consumed alcohol and was under its influence. P.W.5 submitted final report. 5. Section 51(a) of the Act states that a person in any street or public place or in any court, police station or other public office or in any place of public amusement or resort or on board any passenger boat or vessel or in any public passenger vehicle, is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself or behaves in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink is liable to be punished 6. The contention is that none of P.Ws.1 to 3 stated that revision petitioner was incapable for taking care of himself on account of intoxication at the time of the incident. But there is the evidence of P.W.4, medical officer supported by Exhibit P2 that revision petitioner had consumed alcohol and was under its influence. P.W.4 has also given datas for arriving at that conclusion. It is not shown that the finding recorded by P.W.4 in Exhibit P2 is incorrect. Question whether revision petitioner was unable to take care of himself on account of CRL. R.P. .NO.213 of 2000 -: 4 :- consumption of alcohol at the time of accident has to be decided in the light of Exhibit P2 and the evidence of P.W.4. Going by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, revision petitioner was uttering obscene words and obstructing vehicular traffic. Thus there is evidence to show that at the relevant time, revision petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to take care of himself. 7. So far as the contention that P.W.3 has not identified the revision petitioner and P.Ws.1 and 2 have not spoken to the date of the accident is concerned, the incident is proved by P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 has identified the revision petitioner. There is also the evidence of P.W.1 in that regard. Courts below have considered these aspects and found the revision petitioner guilty. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the finding entered by the courts below requiring interference. Conviction therefore cannot be assailed. 8. Under Section 51 of the Act first offender is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one month and fine which may extend to Rs.200/-. As per the proviso, sentence shall not be less than 15 days and fine shall not be less than Rs.150/- in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel that no CRL. R.P. .NO.213 of 2000 -: 5 :- special reason has been stated by the revision petitioner when heard on sentence. Therefore the proviso has no application. Sentence in the circumstances needs no interference. Revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Bail bond shall stand cancelled. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1241 of 2000 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL.R.P. NO. 213 OF 2000 =================== O R D E R 2ND DECEMBER, 2008