IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1696 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.286/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA ST.130/2005 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------=====------------------------- UTHAMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, KAITHATHARAYIL VEEDU, ERAMATHOOR MURI, THRIPPERANTHURA VILLAGE, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYARAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1696 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner, on the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Police Act faced trial, was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, payment of fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the conviction and sentence are not legally sustainable. 3. Case is that on 30.3.2005 at about 1.30. p.m. at a public place petitioner was seen by P.Ws.1 and 3 in a drunken mood behaving in a disorderly manner causing obstruction to pedestrians. He was taken to custody and produced before the medical officer who is stated to have issued Ext.P1, drunkenness certificate. P.Ws.1 and 3, Constable and Sub Inspector gave evidence that at the relevant time and place while on patrol duty they found petitioner in a drunken mood behaving in a disorderly manner. P.W.2, another Constable took the petitioner to the medical officer. Exhibit P1 is the certificate of drunkenness. It is basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and CRL. R.P. No.1696 of 2009 -: 2 :- 3 and Ext.P1 that courts below found petitioner guilty. 4. Exhibit P1, certificate is not properly proved by examining the medical officer who issued the same. If that medical officer is not available for any reason some other officer who could have identified signature of the medical officer who is stated to have issued Ext.P1 should have been examined. Instead, Ext.P1 was proved through P.W.3. If it was proved through the medical officer concerned and if he were not available through some other medical officer petitioner would have got the opportunity to cross-examine such witness as to the contents of Ext.P1. In the circumstances no reliance can be made on Ext.P1 and the conviction based on Ext.P1 cannot stand. 5. Then the question is whether the matter has to go back to the trial court for further evidence. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is a labourer and has been fighting this case from 2005 onwards. Considering all relevant circumstances I am not inclined to think that ends of justice required this matter to go back to the trial court for further trial. Hence I am not adopting that course of action in this case. Conviction and sentence entered on the petitioner cannot be sustained. They are liable to be set aside. CRL. R.P. No.1696 of 2009 -: 3 :- Resultantly, this revision succeeds. Judgments under challenge are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv