DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dayal Singh, petitioner was brought to trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, for having in his possession 35 Kgs. of opium and was convicted under section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal being carried, the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in his elaborate and lucid judgment dated May 17, 1980. The petitioner has now come up by way of revision.

(2.) On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been rather half-hearted. The only argument laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner was that the personal seal used by Sub-Inspector Gurcharan Singh was not handed over to any independent person and that head-Constable Kashmira Singh, to whom the seal was handed over for sealing the recovered articles, was not examined by the prosecution and as such the tampering with the sample in the circumstances could not be ruled out and consequently the petitioner deserved to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. In support of this contention a Division bench decision of this Court in Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab, was cited. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner now stands, over-ruled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Pyara Singh v. The state of Punjab, where in it has been held that there is neither a statutory requirement nor a precedential mandate for handing over the seal used by the police officer in the course of an investigation to a third person forthwith. It necessarily follows therefrom that even where it has been so done, the non-production of such a witness cannot by itself effect the merits of the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner that on the strength of the provisions of Sections 360 and 361, Criminal Procedure Code, urged that the petitioner be released on a personal bond with a surety as he is not a previous convict. I am clearly of the view that smuggling, food adulteration and other economic offences are the only cases where sentence of imprisonment and its severity holds out a deterrent effect on the person engaging himself in such activities as to calculate his benefit or loss, for in regard to crimes committed either in passion, the severity of sentence is no deterrence. The economic offences are on the increase by lease and bounds and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 360 and 361, Criminal Procedure Code, are to be applied to such cases only in very rare and exceptional cases. The case in hand, in my opinion, is not of that Kind.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, I upheld the conviction of the accused-petitioner. The occurrence took place as far back as 1978. There is marginal scope for reduction in the sentence I accordingly reduce it to 1-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause. With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed but sentence reduced.