Ahmedabad: The state government may have tightened prohibition laws with longer jail terms for violators, but in this case, it failed to secure even the minimum one-year sentence for a man found intoxicated and loitering on a public street.
A resident of Kankaria was booked under Sections 66(1)B and 85(1)(3) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act after being caught drunk in 2018. The offence entailed a minimum one-year prison term under a 2017 amendment to the act.
In August 2018, the man confessed his crime, and a metropolitan court sentenced him to sit in the courtroom "till rising of the court" and imposed a fine of Rs 500.
The state government appealed in a sessions court for enhancement of punishment, citing the minimum one-year jail term under Section 85(1)(3) for disorderly conduct in a public place while intoxicated. The government contended that the trial court's order was improper, unreasonable, illegal, and against legal principles, and that it was not given an opportunity to argue for a jail term.
The city sessions court, after hearing the government, noted that the trial court had considered the accused's confession, family responsibilities, and weak financial condition. It also discussed efforts to reduce case pendency.
The court stated: "Since the accused is responsible for supporting his family, imposing a harsher fine or jail sentence would adversely affect him. As he is the sole breadwinner, his imprisonment could leave his family without means of survival. Therefore, sending him to jail was not appropriate. Similarly, a heavier fine would deprive his family of money needed for their needs, causing hardship."
The court further concluded: "Such a lenient order also serves the interest of justice for his family. The sentence and fine imposed by the trial court in exercise of judicial discretion appear proper, reasonable, and lawful. No grounds are found for interference."
