Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 49 (PNJ)

Mohinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2005-01-12

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Mohinder Kaur is before this Court in the instant revision petition as she stands convicted under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act (in short the Act) by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide judgment dated 27.2.1989 for keeping in her conscious possession 5 kgs. of opium on 27.10.1983. She has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further RI for two months. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, she knocked the doors of Court of Session, but met the same fate on merits vide judgment dated 24.1.1990 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. However, the sentence of one year was reduced to 8 months in appeal, though the sentence of fine and default clause was kept intact. 2. I have heard Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Narinder Kapoor, AAG, Punjab. With their assistance I have carefully perused the entire record. 3. Mr. Hundal without joining any issue on merits confines his arguments with respect to quantum of sentence only, submitting that the petitioner, who was of the age of 45 years at the time of alleged recovery i.e. in 1983, should by now be about 66 years old; that she has already suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last 21 years; that she is not a previous convict; that according to the old Act, the maximum sentence of 3 years could be awarded; that the petitioner has already undergone five weeks and a few days as during trial she remained in custody for a few days and after conviction also she stayed in the jail till her sentence was suspended by this Court at the time of admission of the instant revision petition and upto the stage of her furnishing the bail/surety bonds before the concerned court. Mr. Hundal further submits that although the bail/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate have not been sent to this Court after the order of bail was passed, yet as per the instructions issued to him, the aforesaid detention period is correct. 4. The learned State counsel is also not in a position to controvert the factum of detention period of the petitioner. 5. Mr. 4. The learned State counsel is also not in a position to controvert the factum of detention period of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Hundal further contends that in case the petitioner is sent to jail once again after a lapse of many years, it would not only ruin her future, but would also have adverse effect upon whole of her family including the children, who might have got married by now. He then submits that a prayer for releasing the petitioner on probation was made before the trial Court as also before the appellate Court, but the same was declined. Stressing his argument on the point of probation, Mr. Hundal relies upon the decisions in Balam Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) RCR 568 (P&H) and Sikander Khan v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) RCR 208 (P&H). The learned counsel also comes up with an alternative prayer that in case the petitioner is not granted the concession of being released on probation, her sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone, in the flash back of the aforesaid circumstances. To strengthen his submissions, the learned counsel places reliance upon the latest decision in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Crl.) 198, in which this Court while relying upon another decision in Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 388 (P&H) had reduced the sentence of the accused (petitioner) to the period already undergone. In the said case also the petitioner had remained in for about five weeks. 6. The learned State counsel repudiates the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the heavy recovery of opium, no lenient view deserves to be taken in this case. 7. I do not agree with the submission of Mr. Hundal with regard to releasing of the petitioner on probation. However, the alternative prayer for reducing the sentence has force. Keeping in view the ordeal of litigation faced by the petitioner for more than 21 years as also the facts that she is not a previous convict and has remained in custody for about five weeks, the ends of justice would be adequately met if while maintaining the conviction, the period of sentence of 8 months is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine as awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court shall remain intact. 8. With the modification in quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed.