Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 816 (PNJ)

Faqir Chand v. State Of Punjab

2007-04-16

H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.7.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.3.1990 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, whereby he convicted the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Learned counsel at the very out-set has contended that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner on merits and confines his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that a case under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 (for short `the Act) was registered against the petitioner in the year 1985. The present petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 9 of the Opium Act vide order dated 5.3.1990 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.7.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. The petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing the present revision against the judgments of both the Courts below and by now a considerable period of 22 years has elapsed from the date of registration of the case. Learned counsel further submits that during this period, the petitioner has been facing a mental agony of the protracted trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over his head since then. Learned counsel has further submitted that keeping in view the facts and mitigating circumstances of the appellant, as also the fact that he is an old man of 72 years old, some leniency by way of mercy be shown in the matter of sentence against the petitioner. 3. Since the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been restricted only on the quantum of sentence, therefore, I do not consider it necessary to recapitulate the facts again in the judgment herein, since they have been narrated in the judgment of the trial Court in details. 4. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. 4. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed and also keeping in view the nature of the offence, conviction recorded under Section 9 of the Opium Act by both the Courts below against the petitioner shall be maintained, but keeping in view the present circumstances of the petitioner and also the fact that he is an old man of 72 years and is in the evening of his life, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a lenient view in the matter of sentence is taken against the petitioner. Accordingly, taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence against the petitioner, it is directed that the period of sentence as already awarded by both the Courts below is reduced to one year. The petitioner, who is on bail, is directed to be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by this Court. 6. With the aforesaid reduction in the matter of sentence, Criminal revision is partly allowed.