IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 627 of 1999() ----------------------------- CRA.145/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.316/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------- NALINI, W/O. MOHANAN, MALAYIL, PADINHATTUMMURI AMSOM, KIZHAKKUMMURI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHELANNUR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.R.UDAYABHANU, J --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.627 of 1999 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28 th day of February, 2007 ORDER Revision petitioner/accused stands convicted for the offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act in C.C.316/96 and the same was confirmed by the Sessions court in Crl.A.No.145/97, i.e., to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The case of the revision petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 58 of Abkari Act is not established and that the order of imposing fine of Rs.15,000/- is beyond the powers of the J.F.C.M. Court. 2. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of PW1, preventive officer and PW2, excise guard of the detecting squad who have deposed with respect to the incident, as to the sighting of the accused in the road on the particular day at 7 A.M. and detecting the illicit liquor that she CRRP627/99 2 was carrying in a plastic can. There was also an independent occurrence witness who turned hostile to the prosecution. PW5 is the excise inspector who laid the charge. Chemical analysis report would show that the alcohol content was 29.53%. The alcohol content of the arrack manufactured at the state brewery is 42.86%. The above witnesses have also stated that the commodity seized was tasted and smelt and that they are satisfied that the liquor found in possession of the accused was illicit liquor. The evidence of witnesses are supported by the contemporaneous records of detection and seizure. 3. I find that the evidence adduced in the matter do establish the fact that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty of offence charged. There is no scope for interference. All the same, considering the plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner, I find that that the punishment for the offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act is liable to be modified. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner is bed ridden for a few years and that she has got children to be looked after. Further the incident has CRRP627/99 3 taken place in 1995 i.e., a decade earlier. In these circumstances, the sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Revision petitioner is granted one month's time from today onwards to deposit the fine amount. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.R.UDAYABHANU,JUDGE RV CRRP627/99 4 K.R.UDAYABHANU, J Crl.R.P.No.899 of 2001 ORDER CRRP627/99 5 15th February, 2007 CRRP627/99 6