IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1469 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.17/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (AD-HOC) II, KASARAGOD CC.695/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- -------------------------------------------------------------------- P.VASUMATHI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, NEROTH, THAYANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :- ------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE-REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEDCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt P. S. GOPINATHAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P. No.1469 of 2002 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of July 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.695 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg. She was prosecuted by PW4, the Excise Inspector, Hosdurg Range for offence punishable under Sec.55(g) of the Abkari Act with an allegation that at 5.30 PM on 23.1.1996 while PW1, another Excise Inspector moving on patrol duty found the revision petitioner carrying 171/2 litres of wash prepared for illicit distillation in an aluminium vessel. 2. PW1 seized the contraband and took sample. The revision petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared for seizure. When the sample was sent for chemical examination, it was found that the sample contained 4.91% by volume of ethyl alcohol. Crl.R.P. No.1469 of 2002 -: 2 :- PW4, after investigation submitted charge sheet. 3. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence she was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. She denied the incriminating evidence. Ext.D1, a copy of the mahazar was marked during the cross examination of PW4. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of `25,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Though she preferred Crl.A.No.17 of 1999 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) II, Kasaragod, she was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was preferred. Crl.R.P. No.1469 of 2002 -: 3 :- 4. I have heard Adv.Sri.M.Sasindran, on behalf of the revision petitioner and Adv.Sri.Johny Thomas on behalf of the respondent. 5. Having gone through the judgment impugned and evidence on record, it is revealed that by the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, the prosecution had succeeded to establish that at 5.30 PM on 23.1.1996 the revision petitioner was carrying 171/2 litres of illicit arrack in MO1 aluminium vessel. It was seized by PW1 in the presence of PWs.2 and 3, who attested Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. Though PWs.2 and 3 had denied of witnessing the arrest and seizure of the contraband they did admit the signature in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 fully corroborates with the evidence of PW1. There is no case that the signatures of PWs.2 and 3 in Ext.P1 was obtained on a blank paper or that PWs.2 and 3 in any way colluded with PW1 to implicate the revision petitioner for an offence like the one on hand. It appears that PWs.2 and 3 were influenced by the revision petitioner to depose that Crl.R.P. No.1469 of 2002 -: 4 :- they had not seen the seizure. For that reason the credibility of Ext.P1 is not lost. There is also no suggestion that PW1 was in any way motivated against the revision petitioner. In the above circumstance, I find that the courts below had correctly analysed the evidence on record and arrived at a conclusion of guilt. The conviction under challenge requires no interference. The revision petitioner is a lady then aged 42 years. Sri.Puzhakkara Mohammed, the learned Government Pleader, after obtaining instructions from the Charge Officer submitted that during the last 15 years, the revision petitioner was not in any way involved in any offence of this nature. In the above circumstance, on gender consideration and taking note of the subsequent conduct of the revision petitioner, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with fine as ordered by the trial court would meet the ends of justice. Crl.R.P. No.1469 of 2002 -: 5 :- In the result, the revision petition is disposed of :- While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The fine ordered by the trial court and sustained in appeal shall stand confirmed. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine. If any amount is already deposited, that shall be given credit to. P. S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Jvt