IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2284 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.857/2004 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR ST.8846/2000 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - APPELLANT - ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O. OUSO, VALIYAMARATHINKAL VEEDU, KOTTUKADU KARA, CHENDAMANGALM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO. 2284 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur in Crl.Appeal No.857 of 2004 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act, in S.T. No.8846 of 2000 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur. 2. Case is that on 20.8.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. petitioner was seen by C.W.1 and others behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of liquor at a public place causing annoyance to the public. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and proved Exts.P1 and P2. Evidence of P.W.1, Civil Surgeon and Ext.P1 show that he examined petitioner on 20.8.2000 at 5.00 p.m. Petitioner had smell of alcohol. His control was partially lost and he was under the influence of liquor. P.W.2, an independent witness did not support prosecution in full. He claimed to have witnessed the incident and stated that there was a scuffle between petitioner and another person inside the nearby toddy shop but when confronted with his previous statement he confessed that he had told the police in the course of investigation that he witnessed the incident as alleged by the prosecution. P.W.3 stated CRL. R.P. No.2284 of 2009 -: 2 :- that he accompanied C.W.1 at the relevant time. He stated that petitioner was behaving in a disorderly manner on public road causing obstruction to vehicular traffic. C.W.1 took petitioner to custody. Exhibit P2 is the report. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that in none of the records P.W.3 is a signatory to show his presence at the place of occurrence. C.W.1 who is said to have detected the offence is not examined. 4. Non-examination of C.W.1 is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3 if his evidence is otherwise acceptable. I am not inclined to think that since he has not signed Ext.P2, report, evidence of P.W.3 has to be rejected. Exhibit P2 is not a mahazar but a report prepared by C.W.1 That need not necessarily contain the signature of P.W.3. Even as per the evidence of P.W.2 who did not support prosecution, petitioner was in a drunken state. That is further clear from Ext.P1 and evidence of P.W.1. Courts below have considered the evidence and found that petitioner committed the offence under Sec.51(a) of the Act. I do not find reason to interfere. 5. Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days. He was directed to pay fine of CRL. R.P. No.2284 of 2009 -: 3 :- Rs.200/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Counsel states that petitioner is a marble worker, was aged 35 years at the relevant time and is not shown to be involved in any other case. These circumstances in my view are sufficient and adequate to reduce the imprisonment below the minimum prescribed. I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine as awarded by the learned magistrate are sufficient in the ends of justice. Resultantly, revision is allowed in part to the extent that substantive sentence is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. In other respects revision will stand dismissed. Petitioner shall appear in the trail court on 25.8.2009 to receive the sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv