RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar petitioner was brought to trial on a charge under section 9 of the opium Act, for having in his possession of 10 kgs. of opium on 3rd of January, 1978, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, finding him guilty on the said charge, the learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 upon the petitioner. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, not only upheld his conviction but maintained his sentence. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner's argument was rested on State of Haryana v. Pirthi, 1977 C. L. R. 263. It was contended that the affidavits, Exhibits P. F. and P. G. were not in accordance with law and, therefore, had to be ignored altogether in view of the aforesaid judgment. This argument apparently stems from a patent factual misconception. A reference to affidavits, Exhibits P. F. and P. G. would show that the requirements of law were meticulously complied with in these two documents. The deponents were duly identified by Som Nath and Amrik Singh, Naib -Courts and the learned Judicial Magistrate appended the certificates to the effect that both the deponents had been duly identified before him and that the affidavits had been read out and accented by the deponents. Indeed, when confronted with this situation, Mr. Mehta had no option but to withdraw the rather long -winded submission which he had raised on this issue. The conviction of the petitioner has been rested primarily on the evidence of Sampuran Singh, P.W. 1, Assistant Sub -Inspector Pritam Singh, P.W. 2 and Constable Gurmej Singh, P.W. 4. Both the Courts below have held these witnesses to be completely disinterested and they have not been shown to have any hostility or animus against the petitioner to falsely implicate him on a serious charge.

(3.) INEVITABLY a prayer for seeking the benefit of probation or reduction in the sentence has also been made. The trial Court gave adequate reasons for not acting under the Probation of Offenders Act in a case of the present kind where the recovery was heavy and the obvious inference is that the petitioner was trafficking in a dangerous drug. The Appellate Court had equally adverted to this aspect and declined to give this benefit to the petitioner. I find not the least justification to take a contrary view in this behalf. However, there is some marginal scope for reduction in the sentence as the occurrence took place about five years ago. I accordingly reduce it to one year's rigorous imprisonment but impose a fine of Rs. 2,000 in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court, as in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. With this modification in the sentence, the petition fails and is herein dismissed. Petition dismissed.