IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 299 of 2000(Y) ------------------------------ CRA.29/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.5528/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- --------------------- SANKARAN, S/O.THRIKKURVEETTIL MANIKKAN, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, THRIKKUR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.P. No. 1808 of 2000 in Crl.R.P. No. 299 of 2000 Dismissed. 25-9-2009 Sd/- P.Q.Barkath Ali, Judge. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 299 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 25th September, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.5528 of 1995 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda and the appellant in Crl.A.No.29 of 1998 of the Sessions Court, Thrissur. He was convicted under section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days and to pay fine of Rs.50/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days by the trial court by judgment dated January 28, 1998. On appeal, the lower appellate court by judgment dated February 28, 2000 confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution, as shaped in evidence before the trial court, was that on December 16, 1995 at about 10.45 a.m. the accused/revision petitioner was found behaving disorderly manner under the influence of liquor on the public road at Irinjalakuda, causing annoyance and obstruction to the public and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act. PW3, the then Sub Inspector of Irinjalakuda Police Station, caught the accused red-handed and subjected him to medical examination by PW1, the Medical Officer in charge of the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Irinjalakuda. PW1 the Medical Officer issued the certificate Ext.P1 Crl.R.P.299/2000 2 dated December 16, 1995 stating that the accused has consumed alcohol and he was under the influence of liquor. PW3 registered the case against him. 3. When the accused was produced before the trial court, he denied the charge under section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ext.P1 was marked on the side of the prosecution before the trial court. When the accused was questioned under sec.313 Cr.P.C., by the Magistrate, he denied having committed any offence. No defence evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate, on an appreciation of evidence, found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act, convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid, which is confirmed in appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that Pws.2 and 3, who are the Police Constables, foisted the case against the revision petitioner/accused due to previous enmity. There is no substance in the above contention. I have gone through the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. There is nothing to suspect the credibility of those witnesses. They have no previous acquaintance with the revision petitioner/accused. Further, the evidence of PW1 doctor shows that the accused was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the trial court is perfectly justified in accepting the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner/accused behaved in a disorderly Crl.R.P.299/2000 3 manner on a public road under the influence of alcohol, which is an offence punishable under section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act and convicted him thereunder. Therefore, I am inclined to confirm the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act rendered by the Magistrate, which is confirmed in appeal. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the accused is now aged more than 50 and the incident occurred on December 16, 1995 which is about 13 years back, I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week would meet the ends of justice. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act is confirmed. His sentence is modified to the effect that the revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. He shall appear before the trial court on or before October 15, 2009 to receive the sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled. One month's time is granted for payment of fine. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn