IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 788 of 2002() ----------------------------- ST.1403/1992 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA CRA.109/1993 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VARGHESE S/O.VARGHESE,AGED 72 YEARS, MURIKKUMMOOTTIL HOUSE,VALANJAVATTOM MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.788 of 2002 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2010. O R D E R This Revision Petition arises from the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act. After trial, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two days more. In appeal, the Sessions Court also confirmed the same. 2. According to prosecution, on 7.11.1992 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused was found drunk on a public road, incapable of taking care of himself and behaving in a disorderly manner, under the influence of drink. He was taken to the doctor for medical examination and the case was investigated into and a report was filed before the court. 3. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 4. The accused did not adduce any evidence, but stated that he was engaged in coolie work and he had some giddiness and he was leaning onto a wall, while the police came and took him into custody. On an analysis of the Crl.R.P. No.788/02 2 evidence in detail, both trial court and appellate courts concurred the findings that the accused was found in a drunken state, incapable of taking care of himself and behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act and it was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. 4. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. There was no representation for revision petitioner. As per the revision memorandum, a contention is seen raised that there was no independent evidence to prove that any vehicle was obstructed on the road. No driver was examined to prove this fact. It is also the case of the revision petitioner that there is no evidence to prove that the revision petitioner was behaving in a disorderly manner in public. According to the revision petitioner, there must be strong evidence to prove that he was incapable of taking care of himself, after consumption of alcohol. Therefore, the conviction and sentence are unsustainable. Crl.R.P. No.788/02 3 5. PW1 is the Doctor, who examined the revision petitioner on the same night at about 8.15 p.m. and after observing his physical state, he formed an opinion that the revision petitioner had consumed alcohol and he was under the influence of it and that the smell of alcohol was different from any medicinal smell. His clothing was soiled with mud and he was not able to talk clearly. Self control was completely absent. He was over talkative. His memory was poor. Smell of alcohol was present in the mouth. He was not even able to stand erect and was falling down, when he was asked to stand. 6. PW1 stood the test of cross-examination and he corroborated the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are the official witnesses. They also stated that the accused was found in a drunken state, incapable of taking care of himself and behaving in a disorderly manner. There is nothing in evidence to show that they had any motive to implicate the petitioner in an offence of this nature. The courts below have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings. The medical evidence also Crl.R.P. No.788/02 4 supports the evidence of the occurrence witnesses, PW2 and PW3. 7. The absence of independent witnesses, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has not affected the reliability of the evidence given by the police officials. I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. This Criminal Revision Petition is hence, dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs