VIJAY KUMAR JINDAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY Kumar Jindal, the petitioner herein, was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.1988 under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced as under :- U/s 27 (b)(ii) To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. U/s 28 To undergo RI for six months.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal which also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 13.7.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision.

(3.) MR . Ahluwalia at the very outset has submitted that he does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and has prayed for a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Praying for the release of the petitioner on probation, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Surinder Kumar Verma v. The State of Haryana, 1987(2) RCR 201 and Dr. Hari Chand Verma v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) CLJ (C, Cr. and Rev.) 137. The learned counsel then contends that although the minimum sentence as provided under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act is one year but the Court for any adequate and special reasons may impose sentence for a term or can reduce the same. In the present case, the petitioner has already suffered agony of long protracted trial. The learned counsel then contends that in the light of the Full Bench Judgment rendered in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLJ (Criminal) 150 relied upon in Surinder Kumar Verma's case (supra), the prescription of minimum sentence is no bar for attracting the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or as a matter of fact Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel contends that the appellant deserves a sympathetic hilt with regard to the quantum of sentence.