Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1273 (PNJ)

Ajmer Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-07-04

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This revision petition is in respect of the judgment dated 20.8.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dismissing the appeal of the Ajmer Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against the judgment dated 22.9.1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala convicting the petitioner under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act, 1878 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment to fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Factual matrix of the case as unfolded by the prosecution during the trial, is that on 13.6.1985, Sudesh Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police Station Dhanaula accompanied by ASI Amar Singh and other police officials was present on the canal bridge in the area of village Harigarh in connection with investigation of a case. In the meantime, a truck bearing Reg. No. PUK-1461, driven by the petitioner came from the side of Sangrur. Baljinder Singh was sitting on his left side on the front seat of the truck. On seeing the police party, Baljinder Singh succeeded in running away, whereas, the petitioner was apprehended and on search of the truck, he was found in possession of 151 gunny bags, containing 45 kgs. poppy husk each and also 60 kgs. Opium, which was lying in the tool box. Out of the bag, a sample of 250 gms of poppy husk was drawn from each bag and the samples were sealed with the seal bearing impression `SKS. The contraband was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. The truck was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PD. Ruqa Ex. PE was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which First Information Report Ex. PE/1 was registered against the accused. It would also be pertinent to mention here that out of the opium recovered, a sample of 250 gms was drawn and was sealed with the same seal and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB. A separate FIR was regarding the recovery of opium of Ex. PH/1 was registered in Police Station Dhanaula. 3. The completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the charge framed against him under Section 9 of the Opium Act. PB. A separate FIR was regarding the recovery of opium of Ex. PH/1 was registered in Police Station Dhanaula. 3. The completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the charge framed against him under Section 9 of the Opium Act. It would be pertinent to mention here that both the challans i.e. regarding poppy husk and opium, were consolidated and a joint trial was held. 4. In order to seek conviction of the petitioner, the prosecution examined Amar Singh ASI (PW-1) and Sudesh Kumar Inspector (PW-2) both the witnesses of the recovery. The accused in his statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. He further took the stand that he came to Dhanaula on 11.6.1985 for transporting cattle in his truck. The police demanded his truck in `begar and on his refusal to oblige them, he was involved in this false case. In defence, the petitioner examined Ranjit Singh as DW-1. 5. Ultimately, the trial Court ended in conviction of the petitioner under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act, whereas, Baljinder Singh alias Goggi (non- petitioner) was acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, the trial Court issued a separate show-cause notice to the owner of the truck bearing Reg. No. PUK-1461, regarding confiscation of the truck to the State. On appeal, the petitioner could also not succeed. Hence, this petition. 6. At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment only on the point of sentence. While pleading some leniency on the ground that he has already suffered a lot due to the longevity of the trial and pendency of the present revision and that since the year 198 till today, he has not committed any other offence. 7. After due deliberations and considerations, it would not be inappropriate to mention that on the appreciation of evidence, the guilt of the petitioner stands established beyond reasonable doubt. There are concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the recovery of poppy husk from the accused and nothing substantive could be detected to disturb such findings. 7. After due deliberations and considerations, it would not be inappropriate to mention that on the appreciation of evidence, the guilt of the petitioner stands established beyond reasonable doubt. There are concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the recovery of poppy husk from the accused and nothing substantive could be detected to disturb such findings. The conscious possession of the petitioner stands proved as at the relevant time, he was driving the truck, therefore, he was supposed to know the contents of such large number of bags and the contents of tool box, where the opium was allegedly placed. The fact that he tried to run away also indicates towards his knowledge of the contents loaded in the truck. At the same time, since the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction, that also impels me not to doubt the prosecution version. 8. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 28.9.2005 mentioning that he remained in custody for 7-1/2 months during the trial as well as after conviction and after his release on bail, he has neither committed any offence, nor convicted in any other case. Even otherwise, the case was registered against the accused as far back as in the year 1985. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. Much water has flowed during his period of more than 22 years. Though, in case of heinous crimes, pertaining to recovery of such heavy quantity of contraband, time could not be instrumented as a shield for exonerating the petitioner, yet, simultaneously, the other circumstances, referred to above, could be taken into consideration as mitigating circumstances for modification in the sentence. 9. Consequently, the revision preferred by the petitioner is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that it is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, the fine imposed on the petitioner is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-, which would be deposited within three months from today, failing which the revision would be treated as dismissed in toto.