IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1561 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.281/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA SC.403/2001 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED. --------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 65, KOLLATTIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKAN OTHERA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE. -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 1561 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 26-06-2008 ORDER Petitioner who was the accused in S.C. No. 403 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvalla, for an offence punishable under Sec. 8(2) of the Abkari Act, having been found in possession of 2 litres of illicit arrack on 25-10-1999, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-10-1999 at about 12.25 p.m. when P.W.1 the Excise Preventive Officer attached to the Thiruvalla Excise Range and his party were proceeding on patrol duty, they came across a group of persons standing on the side of a lake at Othara Muri. Seeing the Excise party all of them took to their heels. Among them, the accused was seen running with MO1 green coloured jerry can in his hands. He was restrained and the contends of the can was examined to find two litres of a liquid which appeared to be arrack by taste and smell. The accused was arrested and MO1 was seized and a sample of about 300 ml. was taken in a bottle having a capacity of 375 ml. The jerry can containing the remaining contraband liquor and the sample bottle were sealed and seized under Ext.P2 mahazar. The arrested accused was taken along with the seizure documents to the Excise Officer from Crl.r.P. 1561 of 2008 -:2:- where Ext.P4 crime and occurrence report was registered. On the same date itself the accused and the properties were produced before the J.F.C.M., Thiruvalla. Ext.P5 property list shows that the sample bottle was received in court along with MO1 jerry can in a sealed condition. The sample was forwarded to the chemical examiner by the Magistrate on 29-10-1999. Ext.P3 is the certificate of chemical analysis which shows that the sample was received in the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram on 30-10-1999 in a sealed bottle with the seal intact and chemical analysis of the sample revealed that the sample liquid contained 45.79 percent by volume of ethyl alcohol. The despatch of the sample was on the strength of the forwarding note by the investigating officer. 3. Both the courts have entered the conviction against the petitioner after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I also perused the lower court records to satisfy myself as to the legality or otherwise of the conviction entered by the courts below. This Court sitting in Revision will be loathe to interfere with the conviction properly recorded by the courts below. I see no reason to interfere with the conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 4. What now survives for consideration is the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The trial court had imposed rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on default to pay the Crl.r.P. 1561 of 2008 -:3:- fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal by the revision petitioner as Crl. A. 281 of 2006 the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta after confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months. If at all the lower appellate court has erred that was in not confirming the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court. I do not find any good ground for interfering with the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. This killer brew has broken several families. It was noticing the deleterious effect of arrack on the human system that the government banned the noxious substance in the State with effect from 3-6-1997. I therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the sentence as well. In the result this Revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner. Dated this the 26 th day of June 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.