IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 756 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.57/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KASARAGOD SC.1009/2004 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIAPPU, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, PAINIKKARA, KALLAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MS. P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:- -------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 756 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who was the sole accused in S.C. No. 1009 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Court, Hosdurg challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 17.02.2003, at 6.20 p.m., at a place called Panathut bus stop, the accused was found transporting 12 packets of karnataka made arrack each of 100 ml in an autorickshaw by the Sub Inspector of Kasaragod (PW5) and his police party including PW1. The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P. No. 756/2010 -:2:- offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 5 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8 and MO1 series of packets and MO2 series of sample packets. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after trial, as per judgment dated 22.01.2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 57 of 2007, before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, the learned Additional Crl.R.P. No. 756/2010 -:3:- Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod as per judgment dated 18.11.2009 confirmed the conviction entered but reduced the imprisonment from 3 months to 45 days. Hence, this Revision. 6. PW5 is the Sub Inspector who detected the accused carrying packets in the autorickshaw in question and PW1 is the Police Constable who accompanied PW5. PWs 1 and 5 have credibly proved the detection of the offence, the seizure of the 12 packets of contraband arrack including the 4 packets taken as samples. PW2 is the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P1 sketch. PW3 is the Addl. S.I who conducted the investigation. PW4 is an independent witness to Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. Ext.P5 is the property list, Ext.P6 is the forwarding note and Ext.P8 is the chemical analysis report confirming that the samples drawn were arrack. 7. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence Crl.R.P. No. 756/2010 -:4:- in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 8. What now survives for consideration is the question as to the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the young age of the revision petitioner and the fact that he is a first offender, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to 30 days. The sentence of fine as well as the default sentence imposed by the courts below are, however, not interfered with. It goes without saying that the revision petitioner will be entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 756/2010 -:5:-