Partly allowed

Imbichi Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/400/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition in part, confirming the conviction for drug possession but reducing the sentence to one month simple imprisonment and a fine, granting the appellant time to surrender.

What did the court decide?

The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is reduced to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000, with the appellant granted time to surrender.

Imbichi Ashraf Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 19382016

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 400 of 2011 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 78/2010 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM CC 2043/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOCHI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO:1

¶8

IMBICHI ASHRAF, S/O. IMBICHI,

¶9

AGED 50 YEARS, PULIKALAKATHE (H), MATTANCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.400 of 2011

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19^th day of September 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The first accused in C.C. No.2043 of 2006 on the

¶21

files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -

¶22

II, Kochi filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 8A(c) read with Section 22

¶23

(a) of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that on 19.6.2006 at

¶26

about 3 p.m., the revision petitioner and the other accused

¶27

Crl.R.P.400/2011

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

were together found in possession of 39 tablets of Nitravet, 25 Ampules of G-Norphine 2m.l., two syringes and 60 tablets of Nitrosun, in contravention of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶30

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶31

The courts below correctly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 8A(c) read with Section 22 (a) of N.D.P.S. Act, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No circumstance has been brought to the notice of this court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or concurrent finding by the courts

¶32

Crl.R.P.400/2011

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

below was perverse or incorrect. In the said

¶35

circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 8A(c) read with Section 22(a) of N.D.P.S. Act, does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶36

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The revision petitioner was aged 32 years during the relevant time. Presently, he is aged 42 years. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the revision petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is presently settled in life with his wife and children and in the said

¶37

Crl.R.P.400/2011

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

circumstances, it is not just and proper to send the revision petitioner again to jail at this point of time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the quantity of contraband seized, and the fact that the revision petitioner is a first time offender, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 8A(c) read with Section 22(a) of N.D.P.S. Act, to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so.

¶40

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶41

Crl.R.P.400/2011

¶42

: 5 :

¶43

The revision petitioner is granted time till 15.12.2016

¶44

to surrender before the court to suffer the sentence, as

¶45

requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

dl/20.9.2016

¶49

// True Copy //

¶50

PA to Judge

Imbichi Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imbichi Ashraf 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

Jose V.O. Vs the Food Inspector, Chalakkudy Circle.

Sajeer Vs K P a Store

Prasad Kumar P. Vs State of Kerala

Ali P.A Vs the State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Devidas @ Baby Vs State of Kerala