Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the conviction under Section 51(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 (in short, “the Act of 1960”) awarded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad.
2. Prosecution case is that on 21.10.1997 at about 22.45 hours in the night, the revision petitioner was seen in an inebriated mood at a place called Kinassery, near Palakkad. He was fully drunk and incapable of taking care of himself. He behaved in a disorderly manner at a road junction causing nuisance to the passers by through the public road. It is also alleged that he was uttering obscene words under the influence of alcohol. PW1, Sub Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Palakkad detected the offence and filed a petty charge sheet before the learned Magistrate. Ext.P1 is the certificate of drunkenness proved through PW2.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even going by the charge, the revision petitioner was found in a Village setting, called Kinassery, on 21.10.1997 at 22.45 hours allegedly in a drunken bout. According to the learned counsel, the area being a remote Village, the allegation that he caused nuisance to people cannot be accepted. Before examining that contention, Sec.51 of the Act of 1960 can be seen.
“Penalty for being drunk and for disorderly behaviour.- Whoever in any street or public place or in any court, police station or other public office or in any place of public amusement or resort or on board any passenger boat or vessel or in any public passenger vehicle, is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself or behaves in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink shall, on conviction, be punished-
(a) for a first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month and with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees:
Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than fifteen days and fine shall not be less than fifty rupees: and
(b) for a subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees:
Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one month and fine shall not be less than one hundred rupees.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section and section 51A, “public passenger vehicle” means a vehicle used for carrying passengers for hire or reward other than a vehicle which carries passengers for hire or reward under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum”
Court below relied on a decision rendered by this Court in Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT SN 8, Case No.16). The relevant portion reads as follows:
“It is true that behaviour may include something more than mere talk. But actual physical violence is not at all necessary to constitute the behaviour disorderly. Obscene and violent talk coupled with gestures in any of the places mentioned in the section capable of causing annoyance to the public or individual citizens by itself could constitute behaviour in a disorderly manner. In a given case violent and obscene talk in such a place by itself may constitute behaviour in a disorderly manner depending on facts and circumstances. If the behaviour is capable of creating annoyance and apprehension in the mind of a reasonable man that things are not moving smooth, then definitely it could be termed as behaviour in a disorderly manner. Behaviour that is contrary to law and more particularly such as tends to disturb public peace or decorum or shock public sense of morality could be termed to be disorderly behaviour. Petty misdemeanours, generally including nuisance, breach of the peace, offensive or immoral conduct in public life etc. must come within the meaning of disorderly behaviour. It is behaviour characterised by disorder. In interpreting penal sections affecting society, Courts must have the interest of the society also in mind.”
Sec.51 of the Act of 1960 shows that there are two limbs. Firstly, a person, who is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself, if found in any street or public place or in any court, police station or other public office or in any place of public amusement or resort or on board any passenger boat or vessel or in any public passenger vehicle is deemed to have committed the offence. Secondly, a person, who is found drunk, if behaved in a disorderly manner under the influence of drink is also deemed to have committed the offence under this Section. Such a person is liable, for a first offence, for imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month and with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. The proviso to Sec.51(a) says that unless there is any special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than fifteen days and fine shall not be less than fifty rupees.
5. Testimony of PW1 would show that the revision petitioner was found completely under the influence of alcohol and he was uttering obscene words from a public road junction, though it was after 10”o clock in the night. Admittedly, vehicles would ply through the public road even at that time. The contention that the revision petitioner could not have caused nuisance to persons in the locality cannot be accepted as an extenuating circumstance considering the place of occurrence. Further, testimony of PW2 shows that he was completely under the influence of alcohol. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner.
Criminal Revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks A.HARIPRASAD, J.
Crl.R.P.No.698 of 2003 ORDER 20th October, 2014