Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 51 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar Jindal v. State of Punjab

2004-01-14

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, - Vijay Kumar Jindal, the petitioner herein, was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.1988 under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced as under :- U/s 27 (b)(ii) To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. U/s 28 To undergo RI for six months. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal which also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 13.7.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision. 3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. 4. Mr. Ahluwalia at the very outset has submitted that he does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and has prayed for a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Praying for the release of the petitioner on probation, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Surinder Kumar Verma v. The State of Haryana, 1987(2) RCR 201 and Dr. Hari Chand Verma v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) CLJ (C, Cr. & Rev.) 137. The learned counsel then contends that although the minimum sentence as provided under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act is one year but the Court for any adequate and special reasons may impose sentence for a term or can reduce the same. In the present case, the petitioner has already suffered agony of long protracted trial. The learned counsel then contends that in the light of the Full Bench Judgment rendered in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLJ (Criminal) 150 relied upon in Surinder Kumar Vermas case (supra), the prescription of minimum sentence is no bar for attracting the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or as a matter of fact Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel contends that the appellant deserves a sympathetic hilt with regard to the quantum of sentence. 5. The learned State counsel has, however, refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in this regard. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel contends that the appellant deserves a sympathetic hilt with regard to the quantum of sentence. 5. The learned State counsel has, however, refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in this regard. 6. Although the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned trial court and maintained by the learned Appellate Court is not assailed on merits, yet I have gone through the entire record and am of the view that the conviction is well merited. I, therefore, confirm the same. 7. Regarding sentence part, I am of the considered view that there is weightage in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant case relates to the year 1983. By now the petitioner has undergone the ordeal of more than 20 years. The main allegation is that on inspection of his shop, the Drugs Inspector found that he was stocking 19 different type of drugs for sale and on demand he had failed to produce any valid licence or permit for the purpose of stocking the drugs. Thus, the drugs were taken into possession. Since the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply even after he was sent a letter by the Drugs Inspector, the present complaint was filed against him when he contravened the previsions of Section 18(c), which are punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act and for contravening the provisions of Section 18(A) punishable under Section 28 of the Act. 8. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution at all that allopathic medicines, which were found in the possession of the petitioner were spurious or adulterated. The petitioner is otherwise having a letter of Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Jaipur. As per the allegations, he could not practise in allopathic. I am of the view that the judgment rendered in Surinder Kumar Vermas case (supra) squarely covers the case of the present petitioner for the purpose of benefit of probation and I do no find any reason as to why this prayer should not be allowed. As per the allegations, he could not practise in allopathic. I am of the view that the judgment rendered in Surinder Kumar Vermas case (supra) squarely covers the case of the present petitioner for the purpose of benefit of probation and I do no find any reason as to why this prayer should not be allowed. In both the above said cases, it has been observed by this Court that no doubt the minimum punishment has been provided in the Act for the offence committed by the petitioner but it cannot be considered a bar to refuse the benefit of probation. In Surinder Kumar Vermas case (supra), this Court has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Joginder Singhs case (supra). In the said case also the drugs were not found spurious or adulterated. The recovery was effected in 1983 and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was granted the benefit of probation. In my considered view, the present petitioner also deserves the same relief. 9. Consequently, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is set aside and instead he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year of his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as costs of the proceedings. At this juncture, it has been brought to my notice that the fine (Rs. 5000/-) imposed by the learned trial Court stands deposited in the trial Court by the petitioner. The said amount be now adjusted towards the costs of the proceedings. It is, however, made clear that the bonds to be submitted before the trial Court would be without supervision of the Probation Officer and the same shall be furnished within one month after the receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the petitioner shall have to undergo the substantive sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision petition is dismissed on merits. Petition dismissed.