SAGIMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), confirmed in appeal by the appellate court, the accused in C.C.No.804/1999 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally has come up in revision. The prosecution case is that at about 6.40 pm. on 27.7.1999 the revision petitioner was found driving the Bus No.KL7/U1166 in a drunken condition. He was arrested on the spot by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallickathodu, and was subjected to examination by a medical practitioner. On examination, the doctor found that the revision petitioner had consumed alcohol but he was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of examination. However blood sample was collected, and on examination in the laboratory, the blood sample was found containing 51.75 mgs of Alcohol per 100 ml. of blood. On examination the urine sample was found containing 63.25 mgs of Alcohol per 100 ml of urine. Even before obtaining report of analysis, the Sub Inspector of Police suo moto registered FIR against the revision petitioner under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and investigation proceeded.

(2.) The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kanjirappally, and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined five witnesses during trial and marked Exts.P1 to P4 inclusive of the drunkenness certificate, and the report of chemical analysis. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. However, the defence evidence was not accepted by the trial court. Accepting the evidence given by the prosecution the learned Magistrate convicted the revision petitioner. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and to pay a fine of 1,000/- under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he preferred appeal before the Court of Session, Kottayam as Crl.A No.99/2001. In appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Adhoc I), Kottayam confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.