IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2718 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.83/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA SC.566/2005 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KATTAPPANA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- ALEYKKUTTY, W/O CHACKO, VALLASSERIKKUDIYIL HOUSE, PARATHODU KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Crl.R.P. No. 2718 of 2008 .......................................... Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The revision petitioner, a woman, who was aged 57 on the date of occurrence namely 29.05.2003, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Abkari Act. She was tried before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kattappana in S.C. No. 566 of 2005. Her conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl. Appeal No. 83 of 2008. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 29.05.2003, at about 3.20 p.m., in the residential house of the revision petitioner bearing building No. 284 situated at Ward No. VIII of Udumbanchola Panchayat, the revision petitioner was found without any authority of law, in possession of about 4.255 liters of Indian made foreign liquor. Since the contraband liquor was found in her possession in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act, she has committed offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and (h) of the Abkari Act. 3. On the revision petitioner pleading not guilty to the charge framed against her by the trial court for the aforementioned offence, CRL.R.P. NO. 2718/2008 : 2: the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 and got marked 10 documents as Exts. P1 to P10 and 7 material objects as Mos. 1 to 7. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence for the prosecution. She denied those circumstances and maintained her innocence. 5. This was not a case of no-evidence so as to justify an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The trial court therefore called upon the revision petitioner to enter on her defence and to adduce any evidence which she might have in support thereof. She examined the Panchayat Secretary as DW1. 6. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 20.02.2008 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 55(a)(h) and (i) of the Abkari Act, but convicted her under Section 63 of the said Act and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. CRL.R.P. NO. 2718/2008 : 3: On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 83 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 30.06.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 7. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner on various grounds, in as much as the courts below have recorded the conviction after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 9. What now survives for consideration is the question as to the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is a woman aged 62 years and she is a first offender. The punishment provided for an offence under Section 63 of the Abkari Act is fine which may extend to Rs.5000/- or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with CRL.R.P. NO. 2718/2008 : 4: both. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is an aged woman and no criminal antecedents have also been proved against her, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration and that the interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing an appropriate fine. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and she is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) which is the maximum and on default to pay the fine, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv