IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1274 of 2001() ------------------------------ {CR.A.NO.220/1999 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE IN C.C.NO.363/1997 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------- KAMALA, W/O. ASOKAN, KANNAKKOTTUMEETHAL HOUSE, THAZHAKODE AMSOM DESOM, MUKKOM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.1274 of 2001 ------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. O R D E R The accused in C.C.No.363/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thamarassery, who was convicted for an offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act, is the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The prosecution alleged that PW.1 Excise Inspector, who along with PW.4 and other officers were on patrol duty on 11.12.1995, at about 8 am, saw the accused with M.O.1 plastic can when they reached the Panchayat road at Thadapparamba. They inspected M.O.1 in the presence of witnesses and the liquid was identified as arrack by smelling and tasting. 180 ml of the arrack was taken as sample and it was sent for Chemical analysis and Ext.P4 report says that the sample contained 20.47% ethyl alcohol. The accused was, CRL.R.P.No.1274 of 2001 :: 2 :: therefore, found to be guilty under Section 58 of the Abkari Act, convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-. 3. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to one month, maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, submits that the sentence imposed on the petitioner warrants a modification. It is pointed out that the accused is now aged 62 years, a lady and ill. He refers to the appellate court judgment and submits that it deserves modification pointing out the medical records, which were made available to the appellate court should have persuaded the appellate court to CRL.R.P.No.1274 of 2001 :: 3 :: reduce the sentence substantially from 6 months to one month. 6. I take note of the fact that Section 58 of the Act was amended with effect from 3.6.1997 and at the time of commission of offence, the sentence of imprisonment was mandatory. But no minimum sentence was prescribed as such. 7. I heard learned Public Prosecutor on the question of sentence as well. On an over all appreciation of the facts and taking note of the fact that accused is a lady aged 62 years, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant could be reduced from one month, till the rising the court. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction under Section 58 of the Act is confirmed. She is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. She shall pay a CRL.R.P.No.1274 of 2001 :: 4 :: fine of Rs.15,000/-. The fine amount shall be paid within a period of 4 months and in default, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge