IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1050 of 2000() ------------------------------ CRA.108/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.306/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG . ................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------------- A. BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AMBU, RESIDING AT NELLIYADUKKAM COLONY PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.THAMBAN SRI.K.RAJEEVAN SRI.DILIP MOHAN SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR OF HOSDURG RANGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1050 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008. ORDER Petitioner was concurrently found guilty by the trial court as well as the appellate court under section 55(g) of the Abkari Act and convicted and sentenced thereunder to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case was that the accused was found carrying 10 litres of wash in a plastic can at about 6.30 pm on April 5, 1996 through the road in front of his house. Pw.1 who was the Excise Inspector attached to Hosdurg Range had deposed before the court that he had apprehended the accused with the contraband liquor in his possession and had found it to be wash by tasting and smelling it. He had taken sample (200 ml) in a bottle and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. The plastic can was seized and produced before the Court as M.O.1. The accused was arrested and produced before the court. Pw.2 who was the independent witness did not support the prosecution case. However he admitted his signature in Ext.P1. The trial court on evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record found that the prosecution had satisfactorily proved the charge against the petitioner. Ext.P3 the report issued by the Chemical Analyst also clearly indicated that the contraband was wash. The appellate court had re-evaluated the oral and Crl.RP.1050/2000 2 documentary evidence and found that the finding of the trial court did not suffer from any infirmity. 3. Learned counsel has taken me through the depositions of the witnesses and also other relevant materials on record. Having perused the same I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. 4. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner is in his 60's. I am satisfied that petitioner is entitled to get a reduction in substantive sentence imposed on him. Therefore while confirming the order of conviction, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months is reduced to one month. However, petitioner shall pay the fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for one more month. With the above modification in sentence the revision petition is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.