IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 303 of 2002(A) ------------------------------------------ CRL.A.286/1999 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE, CC.NO. 162/1996 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------- JANU, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, MARACHAL HOUSE, MELADY AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, PERAMBRA EXCISE CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO.303/2002-A: ORDER ON CRL.M.P. NOS. 2254/2002, 9129/2002 & 1778/2003 IN CRL.R.P.NO.303/2002 DISMISSED 27/03/2009. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.303 OF 2002 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Challenge in the revision is against the concurrent verdict of guilty rendered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Negativing his plea of not guilty, the learned Magistrate, after trial, found her guilty of the offence under Section 58 of the Act, and on her conviction, sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for one month more. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public prosecutor. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is for CRL.R.P.303/02 2 modification of the sentence imposed against the accused, contending that, she is old and she has got a son, who is 90% disabled, depending solely on her. It is also submitted that the accused is not involved in any other abkari offence or other crime. The learned Public Prosecutor, after verification, endorses the submission made that the accused is not involved in any other crime. However, the court cannot be oblivious to the gravity of the offence for which the accused was found guilty and convicted. It is true that she is now aged 60 years and there may be also some merit in the submission made that she has got a disabled son depending on her. But, it is seen that she had engaged in the manufacture of illicit arrack and was apprehended on finding with possession of five litres of illicit arrack. The quantity of arrack seized from her would indicate that the manufacture of that contraband was for sale to gain profit. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances involved and taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances pleaded by her counsel to have leniency in the punishment, I find the sentence can be reduced to the extent indicated hereunder. Upholding her conviction CRL.R.P.303/02 3 for the offence under Section 58 of the Act, the sentence is reduced, directing her to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks, and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- with default term of imprisonment for one month. Revision is partly allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.303 OF 2002 (A) --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 27th March, 2009