Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 234 (PNJ)

Balwant Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-02-09

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner-Balwant Singh against the judgment dated 2.8.1990 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by which the petitioner was convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced accordingly. 2. The facts of the case are that on 1.12.1984 ASI Satwant Singh of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana along with other police officials was going towards Tajpur Road in connection with patrolling. When the police was at a distance of about 10 karams from the turning of kucha passage leading to village Bhamian, the accused-petitioner was seen coming from the said of village Tajpur. When the accused saw the police officials, he tried to slip away towards village Bhamily. On suspicion, the accused was apprehended by the police officials and his person was searched. One bag (jhola) was recovered from the possession of the accused, which was found containing opium wrapped in the glazed paper. It was weighed. It came out to be 1 kilogram. A sample of 10 gms of opium was taken out of it and was sealed in a parcel. The remaining opium was sealed in a separate parcel and both the parcels were taken into possession. The investigation was completed and the accused was sent up for trial. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined HC Darshan Singh as PW-1 and SI Satwant Singh as PW-2. They proved the prosecution case. 4. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he pleaded false implication. 5. In defence, the accused-petitioner examined two witnesses namely, Harmel Singh as DW-1 and Dharam Singh as PW-2. 6. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana convicted the appellant under Section 9 Opium Act vide judgment dated 28.2.1989 and the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months besides a fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused filed an appeal against this judgment which was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 2.8.1990 and the appeal of the accused-petitioner was dismissed. 7. Hence the present revision. 8. The prosecution case is supported by two witnesses. The accused filed an appeal against this judgment which was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 2.8.1990 and the appeal of the accused-petitioner was dismissed. 7. Hence the present revision. 8. The prosecution case is supported by two witnesses. No doubt they are police officials but they cannot be disbelieved on this ground alone. I have gone through the statements of these witnesses. These are found to be worthy of belief. The defence evidence has also been examined. It appears to have been manipulated by the accused-petitioner. Therefore, conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 Opium Act is upheld. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on the point of sentence. A perusal of the file reveals that occurrence had taken place on 1.12.1984 and the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court on 28.2.1989 after a period of about four years. His appeal was decided by the Appellate Court on 2.8.1990. The present revision was filed in this Court in September 1990. The petitioner was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 3.9.1990. Therefore, the petitioner has remained in custody for more than a month. The matter is very old and he has faced the pangs of the pendency of the appeal for more than 14 years, therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. 10. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.