Partly allowed

Nirmalan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/1620/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition that challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act. The court found the original sentence excessive and reduced the substantial sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court while retaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment modified to be till the rising of the court; fine and default sentence retained.

Nirmalan Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶2

FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931

¶3

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1620 of 2009 -----------------------------CRA.282/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM ....................

¶4

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶5

--------------------------------------NIRMALAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, BIJU BHAVAN, CHERUKUNNU DESOM, VARKALA, PIN:695141,KERALA.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶10

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J

¶13

---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1620 of 2009

¶14

Dated this 10^th day of July 2009

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track-4, Thiruvananthapuram in criminal appeal No.282 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Sec.51(a) the Kerala Police Act (for short, “the Act”). Case is that on 15.11.03 at about 11 a.m petitioner was found behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink at a public place. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and proved Ext.P1, drunkenness certificate. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no reliable evidence to prove the alleged incident.

¶17

Evidence of PWs.1 and 3, police officials would show that on the relevant day, time and place petitioner was found behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink. He was causing obstruction to vehicular traffic at the junction. He was taken to the medical officer (PW.2). Evidence of PW.2 and Ext.P1 show that PW.2 examined the petitioner on 15-01-03 at about 11.45 a.m. Petitioner was not having self control and was talking in abusive language. He was aggressive and had large speech. He had smell of alcohol. Petitioner refused to cooperate with blood test. PW.2 has opined in Ext.P1 and his evidence that petitioner had consumed alcohol. According to the petitioner he is running a barbar shop and a police

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.1620 of 2009 2

¶19

constable by name, Santhosh took him to the police station from his shop. He was assaulted at the police station and a case was registered against him.

¶20

The mere fact that no independent witness is examined is not a ground to disbelieve PWs.1 and 3. Their evidence get corroboration from the testimony of PW.2 and Ext.P1. There is no reason to think that petitioner was falsely implicated in the case for no reason whatsoever. There is evidence to show that petitioner was found behaving disorderly at the influence of drink at a public place. Hence conviction and sentence of petitioner require no interference.

¶21

Learned magistrate has sentenced petitioner to under simple imprisonment for 15 days and payment of Rs.50/-. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case, he is a poor barbar by profession and that if he is put in jail the family will be affected.

¶22

As per Sec 51(a) of the Act if there are sufficient and adequate reasons it is well within power of the court to award imprisonment less than fifteen days. The question whether there are sufficient and adequate reason is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. That, as submitted by learned counsel petitioner is a poor barbar, is not shown to be involved in any other case and if he is sent to the prison his family will be affected are in my

¶23

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.1620 of 2009

¶25

view, sufficient and adequate reasons for awarding imprisonment less than fifteen days. In the circumstances I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine with default sentence as ordered by learned magistrate is sufficient in the ends of justice.

¶26

Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent:

¶27

While retaining the sentence of fine and default sentence awarded by learned magistrate, substantive sentence is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court.

¶28

Petitioner shall appear in the trail court on 05-08-09 to receive the sentence.

¶29

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶30

Sbna/

Nirmalan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmalan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anilv.S. Vs Krishnankutty Nair

Ramani.P.D Vs Sunil Kumar.T.v

Salu N.R Vs State of Kerala and Another

K.C.Shaji Vs State

V.K.Sreenivasan Vs Vasudevan K.Panthalam

Sani Vs Erambath Varghese