IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 268 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.499/1998 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.309/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------- JOY, S/O.MATHEW, CHEEKKAL HOUSE, LISSY ROAD, KOCHI - 18. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC, COCHIN CITY (CRIME NO.231/98) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 268 OF 2001 --------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner was found riding motor cycle bearing Reg.no.KBF 7235 along the Banerji road at 8.10 p.m. on 3.1.1998 in a drunken condition. He was caught red handed by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, City Traffic Police Station. A case as crime No.231/98 was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet alleging offence under Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') and Section 297 IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-II, Ernakulam. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process to the revision petitioner. He entered appearance. After furnishing the copy of the charge sheet and the connected documents, the particulars of the offence was read over and explained. The revision petitioner pleaded guilty. His plea was found voluntarily. Therefore, the learned Magistrate accepted the plea of guilt. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 45 days and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 185(a) of the MV Act and a fine of Crl.R.P.No.268/2001 2 Rs.1000/- under Section 297 IPC with usual default sentence. Having aggrieved, he preferred Crl.A.No.499/98 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. But was unsuccessful. Now this revision petition. 2. Having heard either side, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction under challenge. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner was not so badly drunken and on feeling that he would be sentenced with a fine alone, he plead guilty and that he is a petty businessman and that he had already undergone imprisonment for three days. The revision petitioner is in the agony of the prosecution for about 13 years. In the above circumstance, I find that it would be just and appropriate to modify the substantial sentence to the one already undergone. In the result, this Revision Petition is disposed by reducing the substantial sentence to the sentence already undergone. The fine imposed is confirmed. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/11/7