Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 268 (PNJ)

Charan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-02-16

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Charan Singh son of Prem Singh was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib under Section 9 of the Opium Act vide impugned judgment dated 29.5.1989 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further RI for three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, he filed an appeal, which also stands dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment dated 26.2.1990. However, in appeal the sentence of two years was reduced to 1-1/2 years and she fine was reduced from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 500/-. Hence this revision petition. 2. I have heard counsel for the both the sides and have carefully perused the entire evidence on record. 3. Mr. Gupta does not join any issue on merits and instead prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the grounds that the alleged recovery in this case was effected way back in the year 1985 and since then the petitioner has faced the agony of protracted trial spreading over to 20 years; that at the time of registration of the case, the petitioner was 37 years old and by now he is well settled in his life; that he is not a previous convict; that sending him to jail once again at this stage would not only jeopardise his life but would adversely effect his entire family as he is the sole bread winner in the family; that the petitioner has remained in custody for 26 days including the period as undertrial. 4. The main submission made by the learned counsel is that on the basis of the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner deserves the concession of being released on probation or in the alternative his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his second contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Tota Singh, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 663 and Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 198. 5. The State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. So far as releasing of the petitioner on probation is concerned, I am not in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Gupta. 5. The State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. So far as releasing of the petitioner on probation is concerned, I am not in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Gupta. However, his second submission for reduction in quantum of sentence is certainly acceptable. As stated above, the petitioner has faced the agony of protracted trial for a pretty long time and admittedly he has undergone some part of his substantive sentence. Even the lower appellate Court has also taken a lenient view inasmuch as it reduced the substantive sentence and even the sentence of fine. 7. In Joginder Singhs case (supra), wherein a recovery of 15 kgs. of opium was effected, this Court relying upon another decision rendered in Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) Recent Criminal Reports 388, reduced the sentence of the petitioner (accused) to the period already undergone (viz. five weeks). In Iqbal Singhs case (supra), the recovery was 20 kgs. of opium. 8. In Tota Singhs case (supra), there was recovery of 13.950 kgs. of opium. It was a State appeal and while allowing the appeal of the State, in which acquittal was set-aside, this Court keeping in view the fact that the respondent/accused had already undergone three weeks of his substantive sentence, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In the case in hand, the recovery is 4 kgs. and 50 grams of opium. 9. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the facts of the case in hand, ends of justice would be adequately met if while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. So ordered. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. Mr. Gupta states that the amount of fine stands deposited with the trial Court at the time of filing an appeal before the first appellate Court. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the revision petitions stands dismissed.