Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 660 (PNJ)

Davinder Kaur v. State

2009-04-15

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2009
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.3.2009 in Criminal Revision No.1404 of 2001 to state that lenient view be taken. In case of petitioner, it is submitted that so far as the conviction is concerned the petitioner will not be assailing her conviction. 2. In the present case, on 25.7.1991, the term of Customs and Central Excise preventive Staff visited the residential premises along with search warrants. In the presence of two independent witnesses search was Carried and 23 biscuits of gold were recovered. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that right from the beginning petitioner had urged that the house belongs to her brother Kamaljit Singh and the petitioner has been residing in his house along with her sister Surinder Kaur who had appeared in defence evidence and has stated that 23 gold biscuits were sent to her by her husband Sarabjit Singh from Jordan. Sarabjit singh was declared as Proclaimed Offender. 4. The contentions raised before me was not accepted by the two Courts below. 5. Mr. Ghai has stated that he is conscious that this Court cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, he has stated that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner, a lady, behind the bars after 18 years of the occurrence. It is submitted that petitioner is now aged about 55 years and is having two minor children. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in criminal Revision No.1404 of 2001 decided on 23.3.2009 in case of another accused has observed as under: ". . . The petitioner has also paid the entire penalty for being in possession of the Gold Biscuits for non-payment of custom duty. He further submits that now the Gold Control Act has been abolished and, therefore, a lenient view be taken in the case of the petitioner as far as the sentence is concerned. Learned counsel further submits that he does not challenge the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has also remained in jail for a brief period of 7 days. Learned counsel further submits that he does not challenge the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has also remained in jail for a brief period of 7 days. Keeping in view the fact that the raid was conducted upon the premises of the petitioner and he was subjected to personal search as far back as on 11.4.1991 i. e. almost 18 years ago, and that the Gold Biscuits have been confiscated and that he has also paid the penalty for being in possession of the articles and further that now the Gold control Act has also been abolished, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by the petitioner. However, as the conviction of the petitioner stands, therefore, the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rupees one lac and shall deposit the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case of non-deposit of the fine of Rupees one lac, the petitioner shall serve out the entire sentence as imposed upon him by the Courts below". 7. Mr. H. P. S. Ghuman, Advocate, appearing for the respondent has stated that in the case relied upon by the petitioner, the recovery effected was of six gold biscuits and one gold sovereign, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be said to be similar to the case of Vijay Kumar who was granted benefit by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Revision No.1404 of 2001. 8. To rebut this argument, Mr. Ghai has submitted that six gold biscuits and the gold sovereign recovered from the said Vijay kumar weighed 730/840 grams whereas recovery of gold from the petitioner weighed 522.840 grams. Therefore, the recovery from the petitioner was less than the recovery effected from the above said Vijay Kumar who was accused in Criminal Revision no.1404 of 2001. 9. Ghai has submitted that six gold biscuits and the gold sovereign recovered from the said Vijay kumar weighed 730/840 grams whereas recovery of gold from the petitioner weighed 522.840 grams. Therefore, the recovery from the petitioner was less than the recovery effected from the above said Vijay Kumar who was accused in Criminal Revision no.1404 of 2001. 9. Guided by the observations made by co-ordinate Bench in case of Vijay Kumar (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the gold has been confiscated, petitioner has suffered protracted trial for more than 18 years and has also paid penalty of Rs.20,000 for being in possession of articles and further that the Gold Control act has been abolished, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. Petitioner has undergone six days of the actual sentence. However, sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.20,000 to Rs.1,00,000. The amount of fine be deposited within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the fine is not deposited, the benefit in reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner and the petitioner shall undergo the entire sentence. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. Revision disposed of.