Dismissed

Gopi Pillai v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC10 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/825/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal revision petition. The revision petitioner, convicted for possessing illicit arrack under Section 58 of the Abkari Act, challenged his conviction and sentence of one day "till rising" and a fine. The Court found the evidence credible and upheld the conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed; the accused is directed to appear to serve sentence.

Gopi Pillai Vs Public Prosecutor — Kerala HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 825 of 2000() ----------------------------CRA.196/1997 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.636/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

GOPI PILLAI, NADUVILETHUNDIL VEEDU, KUTTAMPEROOR, MANNAR

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

¶12

STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, EKM

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.GIRI, J

¶16

Crl.R.P.825/2000

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2009

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The accused in C.C.No.636/95 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Chengannur, who was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and sentenced till the rising of the Court along with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, has come up in revision.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on 2.9.1995 at about 4.30. p.m., PW1, the Preventive Officer and party, while on patrol duty found the accused on the Panchayat road near the house of one Parameswaranpillai. He was having a plastic kannas with him and it was found to be having 1½ liters of illicit arrack. The articles were taken into custody, Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared and the sample was sent

¶21

for chemical analysis. After the arrest, the accused was released on bail as evidenced by Ext.P2 bail bond. Ext.P3 occurrence report was filed and the sample was

¶22

Crl.R.P.825/2000

¶23

¶24

sent to the chemical analyst for his report. By Ext.P5 it is evident that the article was liquor.

¶25

PW1, the Preventive Officer spoke about the detection and arrest of the accused. PWs2 and 3, the attestors to the mahazar admitted their signature in the mahazar and to that extent, they supported the prosecution case. PW4, the Preventive Officer who was the person along with PW1 in the patrol party, also deposed regarding the seizure of the articles.

¶26

The Courts below found the evidence adduced by the prosecution to be acceptable and credible. There was a feeble suggestion on the part of the accused that the case has been foisted on him due to previous enimity entertained by PW1. There was no credible suggestion in this regard and the Courts below rightly accepted the testimony of PW1 supported by PW4, corroborated in material particulars as regards the seizure by PWs2 and 3. The conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act, therefore, was

¶27

Crl.R.P.825/2000

¶28

¶29

warranted and justified. The accused was only sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one day, ie, till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-. Sentence cannot be considered as excessive and unjustified.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having independently gone through the evidence and records of the case, I am satisfied that the conviction and sentence of the accused does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶31

The accused shall appear before the Court below on 16.3.2009, to serve his sentence.

¶32

V.GIRI, Judge

¶33

mrcs

Gopi Pillai v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Pillai v. Public Prosecutor

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

Yherian, S/O.Mathew Vs P.K.Santhosh

Joy Thomas Vs P.T. George

K.M.Basheer Vs Sri.S.M.Vijayanandan

Forest Range Officer, Meppadi Vs K.Sankaran

The Enforcement Officer, Epfo Vs Naduvattom Gmv Sahakarana Sangham

T.Biji Vs Antony