IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 42 of 2002() {CR.A.NO.215/1996 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY IN S.T.NO.2824/1993 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- B.RAHIM, S/O.AYAMMED, KAITHIERI PUNATHIL HOUSE, KOLASSERY, KAVUMVAGAM, KOTHAPARA, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.42 of 2002 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. O R D E R The accused, in S.T.No.2824/93 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery, who was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 51 of the Police Act {for short “the Act”}, is the petitioner herein. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.1992 at 12.15 on receiving information over phone that a person excessively drunk is lying on the road, PW.2, along with police patrol party, had proceeded and had found the accused in an advanced stage of intoxication lying on the road and abusing the passers by in filthy language. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Thalassery for treatment. PW.1 is the doctor who issued Ext.P1. Neither blood nor urine test was conducted on the accused. PW.2 conducted the investigation. The trial court accepted the evidence adduced, found the accused guilty under Section 51(a) of the Police Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, with a CRL.R.P.No.42 of 2002 :: 2 :: default sentence. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate court. Hence this appeal. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Section 51(a) of the Act reads as follows: 51. Penalty for being drunk and for disorderly behaviour -- Whoever in any street or public place or in any court, police station or other public office or in any place of public amusement or resort or on board any passenger boat or vessel or in any public passenger vehicle, is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself or behaves in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink shall, on conviction, be punished -- (a) for a first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month and with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than fifteen days and fine shall not be less than fifty rupees;” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of PW.2 does not indicate that the accused was lying in a public road. In fact, PW.2 has only stated that he received CRL.R.P.No.42 of 2002 :: 3 :: information that a person in a drunken state was lying and he proceeded to the spot. But there is no suggestion in the cross- examination of PW.2 that the accused was found on a road, other than a public road. In fact, the suggestion was that the entire case was foisted on the accused for not co-operating with the police in certain other cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the blood test or urine test is not mandatory, since the allegation is that the accused was found in an advanced stage of intoxication, Blood test should have been conducted, at least, to ascertain the percentage of alcohol content in his blood. That was not done for no specific reason. 5. In my view, the evidence on record justifies the conviction of the accused under Section 51(a) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is one where the sentence should have been imposed invoking the proviso to Section 51(a) of the Act. According to him, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused was making nuisance of himself to the passers by or to any specific person by name. Further, though the allegation is that the accused was seen scolding the passers by under the CRL.R.P.No.42 of 2002 :: 4 :: influence of alcohol, there is no material to indicate the same. 7. In the result, while confirming the conviction under Section 51(a) of the Act, I am of the view that there are adequate reasons by which the sentence of imprisonment shall be reduced from 15 days. Accordingly, the accused is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.200/-. The sentence is modified accordingly. The accused shall appear before the court below on 06.04.2009 to suffer the sentence of imprisonment. He shall also remit the fine amount on the said day. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge