Ahmedabad: The state govt may have tightened prohibition laws by prescribing longer jail terms for violators, but in this case it failed to secure even the minimum one-year sentence for a man in an inebriated condition who was found 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 punishment of a minimum one year in prison, according to a 2017 amendment in the Gujarat Prohibition Act.In Aug 2018, the man confessed his crime and a metropolitan court made him sit in the courtroom “till rising of the court” as punishment. It also fined him Rs 500.The man being let-off with a mild punishment did not go down well with the state govt. It appealed in a sessions court for enhancement in his punishment by citing the provisions of a minimum one-year jail term under Section 85(1)(3) for disorderly conduct in a public place in an inebriated condition.The govt contended that the trial court’s order was improper, unreasonable, illegal and against the established principles of law. The trial court did not grant the prosecution an opportunity to make its case good for a jail term.The city sessions court heard the govt and said that the trial court considered the accused’s confession, his family responsibility and weak financial condition. It also discussed the efforts being taken by the judiciary and the govt to reduce pendency.“Since the accused is responsible for supporting his family, imposing a harsher fine or a jail sentence would adversely affect him and, as he is the sole breadwinner of his family, his imprisonment could leave his family without means of survival. Therefore, sending him to jail was not found appropriate. Similarly, imposing a heavier fine was also considered unsuitable, because any amount paid to the govt as a fine would instead deprive his family members of money that could otherwise be spent on their needs, causing them hardship.”The court further stated in the order, “It is concluded that such a lenient order would also serve the interest of justice for his family. Therefore, the sentence and fine imposed upon the accused by the trial court in exercise of its judicial discretion appear proper, reasonable, and lawful, and no grounds are found for interference.”
