Kerala High Court
Dinesan vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
CRL.REV.PET NO. 503 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.273/2018 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE -III, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2018 IN S.C.NO.310/2016 OF
III ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
DINESAN,
S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, CHIRAYIL THAZHAKUNI HOUSE,
VALLIYAD, KOTTAPALLI, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.BHASKARAN
SRI.ARJUN.C.BHASKAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.
BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2021
This revision is filed against the concurrent findings of
guilt of the accused for offence punishable under Section 55(a)
of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (for short 'the Act'). The trial
court as well as the appellate court has confirmed the finding of
guilt of the accused and orders of conviction and sentence.
2. The revision petitioner was chargesheeted for offences
punishable under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Act. The trial
court as well as the appellate court found him guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Act and convicted
him and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he was also directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
3. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner was that the courts below have not considered the
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2021
evidence adduced in a proper manner and arrived at a finding of
guilt against him. According to him though benevolent
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are attracted in the
case on hand, the revision petitioner being the first offender, the
trial court failed to advert to that. According to him the revision
petitioner being the first offender in an Abkari offence, he is
entitled to get the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act and
the punishment imposed could have been averted by the court.
4. This Court has noticed from the judgment that the
trial court had considered that aspect but was declined to grant
the benefits of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act for
the reason that grounds are not made out for applying the
provisions. The appellate court was also alerted and the court
repelled it. With regard to the sentence imposed, though
punishment upto ten years was liable to be imposed, the trial
court had imposed only sentence of one year. The quantity of
contraband involved being 20 liters, the punishment imposed is
proportionate and therefore, just and reasonable. The fine
amount liable to be imposed being not less than Rs.1,00,000/-,
the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed also does not call for
modification. There is absolutely no scope for exercise of
Crl.R.P.No.503 of 2021
discretion in the matter of imposition of punishment, being the
minimum and proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Legal grounds having not been brought to notice, Crl.R.P is
dismissed in limine.
sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
NAB
