Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42957
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
GOPAL T K – Appellant
Versus
S I OF POLICE,TSR – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 2665/2003
Public intoxication causing nuisance is a criminal offense under the Kerala Police Act, supported by sufficient evidential corroboration.
Headnote:
Alcohol - Conviction - Kerala Police Act - Section 51(a) - The Kerala Police Act empowers authorities to prosecute individuals influencing public safety, emphasizing the need for individual accountability in public intoxication cases.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was found intoxicated and causing public nuisance on June 20, 1999. He was prosecuted under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act, leading to a conviction for his actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the lower court's finding of guilt, citing sufficient evidence from witnesses establishing the accused's incapacity due to alcohol and the resultant nuisance.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction for public intoxication under the Kerala Police Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The conviction was upheld based on the corroborated evidence of witnesses establishing the accused's public drunkenness and its disruptive effects.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Revision Petitioner is the accused in S.T.3513/1999 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-1, Thrissur. He was prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrissur, Town East, who was examined as PW1 for offence u/s 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act with an allegation that at 3.45 p.m on 20/6/1999 the Revision Petitioner was found under the influence of alcohol incapable of taking care of himself and causing nuisance and annoyance to the public at the public road in front of the Medical College Hospital junction, Thrissur.
2. Since the Revision Petitioner pleaded not guilty he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 and P1(a) were marked. The revision petition took a plea of total denial. No defence of evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 15 days and a fine of Rs.50/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 days. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Thrissur, to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2003, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal this revision petition was preferred.
3. Recurrently, there is no representation for the revision petitioner. The learned Government Pleader is heard. He took me through the evidence on record as well as the judgment impugned.
4. The evidence of PW1 would establish that the revision petitioner was incapable of taking care of himself at public road in front of the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur as a result of the intoxication and the influence of alcohol and was causing nuisance and annoyance to the public. PW4, the Police Constable also would corroborate with the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW2, the Civil Surgeon attached to the District Hospital, Thrissur, supported by the medical certificate would corroborate with the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 that the revision petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. In the above circumstance, I find no illegality, error or impropriety committed by the courts below in appreciating the evidence. Conviction is based on cogent evidence. Sentence awarded is the minimum. The revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed.
P.S GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
