IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1032 of 2000()
1. THOTTIYIL NARAYANI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.I. OF EXCISE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.THAMBAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :10/09/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1032 of 2000
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.299/96 with
respect to the offence under Section 58 of Abkari Act and stands
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of
Rs.15,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for one month.
2. The prosecution case is that on 30.10.1995 at about
1.30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of two litres of
illicit arrack.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PWs’ 1 to 3, Exts. P1 to P3 and MO1.
4. PW2, the independent witness did not support the
prosecution as to the alleged detection but he has admitted the
signature in the mahazar. It is PW1, the preventive officer, who
detected the offence that has testified as to the incident. Nothing
has been brought out in the cross examination to discredit his
version. Ext. P3 chemical analysis report showed that the sample
contained 24.45% by volume of ethyl alcohol. Ext. P1 is the
CRRP1032/2000 Page numbers
seizure mahazar.
5. It is contended that at the time, the Government
manufactured arrack was available. PW1 has testified that the
standard prescribed for the Government manufactured arrack was
42.86% by volume of ethyl alochol. The evidence of PW1 that he
tasted the contraband and it was found to be illicit was relied on
by the court below. In view of the evidence of PW1 as well as
considering the quantity of ethyl alcohol, I find that the court
below was absolutely right in arriving at the conclusion that the
contraband is illicit arrack. In the circumstances, I find no reason
to deviate from the findings of the courts below. The conviction is
confirmed.
6. Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for
leniency pointing out that the accused is a lady right now aged
more than 57 and that more than 10 years have elapsed since the
commencement of the proceedings. In the circumstances, the
sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court
and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. The revision petitioner is granted
CRRP1032/2000 Page numbers
three months’ time to remit the fine amount. She shall appear
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg on
10.12.2007 to receive the sentence.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl