Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 405 (PNJ)

Avinash Chander v. State of Punjab

2000-04-17

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 3.8.1987, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, under section 9 of the Opium Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the on 6.1.1985, Head Constable Kuldip Singh of Police Station, City Phagwara, along with another Head Constable Harbhajan Singh and two constables went on routine patrol duty. The police party went towards Jalandhar Octroi Post from the side of the Bus Stand. When the police party reached the Hoshiarpur Chowk, the petitioner was seen coming from the side of Hoshiarpur and on seeing the police party he became nervous. He was stopped on the basis of suspicion and his search was conducted and opium weighing 4 Kgs. was recovered from the bag which the petitioner was carrying under the cover of the shawl. A sample, as per the rules, was drawn and the remaining opium was sealed in a tin after weighment. On receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, the petitioner was challaned. 3. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and framed a charge under Section 9 of the Opium Act against the petitioner. The charge was read over and explained to the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. On order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined HC Kuldip Singh and HC Harbhajan Singh. The prosecution also tendered into evidence the report of the chemical examiner and the affidavits of the formal witnesses. 5. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied those circumstances and stated that he was innocent. 6. The learned Magistrate believed the story of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the petitioner under section 9 of the Opium Act to undergo RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1-1/2 months. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 3.8.1987 and in this manner, the present revision. 7. 300/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1-1/2 months. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 3.8.1987 and in this manner, the present revision. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgments and the grounds of revision and am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below so far as the conviction aspect is concerned. The sole point which survives for determination is what sentence should be awarded to the petitioner, after a lapse of 15 years as the recovery was effected in the year 1985. The petitioner is suffering the agony of criminal trial since 1985 and in the opinion of this Court, the sentence which has already been undergone by the petitioner shall suffice the purpose of interest of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. 8. With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Revisions dismissed.