Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 551 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-05-02

BALDEV SINGH

body2005
Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. Surjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh resident of village Katani Kalan Police Station Sahnewal district Ludhiana has filed this revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 11.7.1990 passed by Sh. Beant Singh Bedi, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and sentence order, both dated 25.8.1988 passed by Sh. D.K. Sarpal, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana were upheld, vide which the petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 2 months. 2. The prayer made in this revision petition is to set aside the impugned judgments and sentence order passed by both the Courts below and to acquit the petitioner of the charge framed against him under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 . 3. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.3.1985 Jagjit Singh SI along with Teja Singh HC, Daya Singh ASI and other police officials was going in a jeep from the side of village Katani Kalan towards village Chandran for excise checking. The petitioner came across the police party when the jeep was 1 kilometre short of village Chandran. The petitioner, on seeing the police party, tried to conceal him by sitting in the field where wheat crop was sown. He was intercepted on suspicion. A bag was recovered from his possession. It contained opium wrapped in a glazed paper. 10 grams of opium was taken as sample and sealed in a tin `dabi. The remaining opium was weighed and was found 9.740 kilogram. It was put in a tin `pippa. Both these parcels were saled by Jagjit Singh SI with his seal bearing impression of letters `JS. These parcels were taken into possession vide recovery Memo Ex. PA, which was attested by Daya Singh ASI and Teja Singh HC. Jagjit Singh SI sent ruka for registration of the case. Site plan Ex. PD was prepared showing the place of recovery. The sample, thereafter, was sent for chemical analysis and vide report Ex. PE its contents were found to be opium. The petitioner had no licence to possess the opium. He was challaned for contravening Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 . 4. Site plan Ex. PD was prepared showing the place of recovery. The sample, thereafter, was sent for chemical analysis and vide report Ex. PE its contents were found to be opium. The petitioner had no licence to possess the opium. He was challaned for contravening Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 . 4. Charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 Jagjit Singh Inspector and PW-2 Daya Singh ASI. Affidavits of Satpal Singh HC and of Constable Bhupender Singh were tendered into evidence. 6. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence against him was put to him and his answers were recorded. The petitioner took the plea that on 17.12.1984 HC Ramji Dass along with two Constables came to his shop. He was not present there. HC Ramji Dass summoned him from his house. When his wife told him that he was not at his house and that he would be sent to the police station, Ramji Dass HC started abusing his wife. Ramji Dass HC took away scooter No. PBL-598 from his house in the presence of Joginder Singh and Jagir Singh. He then went to the police station where an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was demanded from him for the return of the scooter. He further stated that he filed a complaint against Ramji Dass HC, which is pending in the Court. Jagjit Singh SI, the Investigating Officer of this case is very close to Ramji Dass HC and for that reason the petitioner was falsely involved in this case. 7. The petitioner examined DW-1 Bakhshish Singh and DW-2 Gulshan Kumar in his defence evidence. 8. Arguments of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner and of the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-Punjab State were heard and the record of the case was perused. 9. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction. He, however, submitted that the sentence order vide which the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 months and to pay fine of Rs. 9. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction. He, however, submitted that the sentence order vide which the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 2 months, be modified and lenient view be taken regarding sentence against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner is now aged about 60 years. The alleged recovery relates to the year 1985 (29.3.1985). More than 20 years have passed. He has been suffering from the agoney of this case during this long period of 20 years. He remained in jail in this case from 29.3.1985 to 15.4.1985 and from 11.7.1990 to 25.7.1990. His sons and daughters by now have been married. The sentence is for a short period i.e. less than 1 year. In case, he is sent to jail again after a lapse of 20 years, it would not only ruin him but would also have adverse effect on his entire family including children who are by now married. 11. Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Mohinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2005(1) RCR(Crl.) 974. 5 kilgram opium was recovered on 27.10.1983 from the petitioner and she was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 2 months. Her conviction was maintained, but the sentence order was modified. She had remained in custody for 5 weeks. In this case also, the petitioner deserves leniency regarding sentence which is reduced to already undergone. He shall, however, deposit the amount of fine if not already deposited. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for 2 months. 12. Except the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.