IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 661 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.33/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA ST.404/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ JAISON, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, CHERUVIL VEEDU, SOUTHKATHIPPARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.R.P. No. 661 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. O R D E R The revision petitioner, who was the accused in S.T. Case No. 404 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimaly, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960. 2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 7 p.m on 31.03.2006 on the public road at South Kathippara, the accused was found drunk and behaving in a disorderly manner uttering obscene words and causing annoyance to the public and he thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act. 3. On the side of the prosecution, an independent witness was examined as PW 1. The Sub Inspector (PW3) who lodged the complaint and PW2 who was the police constable who was in the company of PW3, were also examined. PW4 is the doctor who proved Ext.P1 drunkenness certificate. CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 2: 4. The learned Magistrate after trial found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum namely simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 33 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. 5. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner particularly that the conclusion reached by PW4, the doctor in Ext.P1 drunkenness certificate that the accused was under the influence of liquor could not be made without examining the blood and urine of the accused, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. In the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Georgekutty v. State of Kerala (1991(2) KLT 570), features such as smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, dilation of pupils,incoherence in speech etc. are useful parameters for a CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 3: medically qualified person to arrive at the conclusion that the accused is under the influence of liquor. The conviction has been recorded by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case and this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 6. What now survives for consideration is the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was aged only 31 years on the date of occurrence and he is a coolie by avocation. He is stated to be a married person. Having regard to the impecunious circumstances and the strata to which the revision petitioner belongs, I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to be released on probation since he was a first offender. Accordingly, confirming the conviction recorded against the petitioner, he is directed to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by the trial court for a period of two years on his executing a bond and on the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation under CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 4: Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the Taluk Legal Service Committee concerned for causing annoyance to the public whom the State represents. The compensation shall be paid within one month from today. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today for executing a bond under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Crl. R.P is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 5: