High Court Kerala High Court

Jaison vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 12 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jaison vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 12 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 661 of 2008()


1. JAISON, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 33 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.ELIAS

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :12/03/2008

 O R D E R
                       V. RAMKUMAR , J.
           ==========================
                CRL.R.P. No. 661 of 2008
           ==========================
             Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008.

                           O R D E R

The revision petitioner, who was the accused in S.T. Case

No. 404 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Adimaly, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence

passed against him by the courts below for an offence punishable

under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960.

2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 7 p.m on

31.03.2006 on the public road at South Kathippara, the accused

was found drunk and behaving in a disorderly manner uttering

obscene words and causing annoyance to the public and he

thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 51(a) of

the Kerala Police Act.

3. On the side of the prosecution, an independent witness

was examined as PW 1. The Sub Inspector (PW3) who lodged

the complaint and PW2 who was the police constable who was in

the company of PW3, were also examined. PW4 is the doctor

who proved Ext.P1 drunkenness certificate.

CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 2:

4. The learned Magistrate after trial found the revision

petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to the

mandatory minimum namely simple imprisonment for 15 days

and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and on default to pay the fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days. The conviction and

sentence were confirmed in appeal preferred by the revision

petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 33 of 2007 before the Sessions

Court, Thodupuzha.

5. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction

recorded against the revision petitioner particularly that the

conclusion reached by PW4, the doctor in Ext.P1 drunkenness

certificate that the accused was under the influence of liquor

could not be made without examining the blood and urine of the

accused, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above

submissions. In the light of the decision of a Division Bench of

this Court in Georgekutty v. State of Kerala (1991(2) KLT

570), features such as smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, dilation

of pupils,incoherence in speech etc. are useful parameters for a

CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 3:

medically qualified person to arrive at the conclusion that the

accused is under the influence of liquor. The conviction has been

recorded by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral

and documentary evidence in the case and this Court sitting in

revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction. The

conviction is accordingly confirmed.

6. What now survives for consideration is the adequacy or

otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner.

The revision petitioner was aged only 31 years on the date of

occurrence and he is a coolie by avocation. He is stated to be a

married person. Having regard to the impecunious circumstances

and the strata to which the revision petitioner belongs, I am of

the view that the petitioner can be directed to be released on

probation since he was a first offender. Accordingly, confirming

the conviction recorded against the petitioner, he is directed to

be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958 by the trial court for a period of two years on

his executing a bond and on the petitioner paying a sum of

Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation under

CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 4:

Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the Taluk Legal

Service Committee concerned for causing annoyance to the public

whom the State represents. The compensation shall be paid

within one month from today. The petitioner shall appear before

the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today for executing

a bond under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958.

This Crl. R.P is disposed of as above.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

CRL.R.P. NO. 661/2008 : 5: