SIKANDER KHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIKANDAR Khan petitioner has by way of this revision petition challenged his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 3 of the Opium Act.

(2.) ON 23rd February, 1982, the petitioner was apprehended by Assistant Sub -Inspector Ramandip Singh PW 2 and he was found in possession of 20 kg of opium. A sample was taken out of the same and was sent for analysis to the Chemical Examiner. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, the same contained morphine.

(3.) MR . Harbans Singh Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not addressed me on the merits. He has placed on record the photostat copies of the Punjab University degree showing that the petitioner graduated in Arts in Second Division from that University in the year 1980. The petitioner gave his age at time of framing of the charge, i.e., on 6th January, 1983, as 21 to 22 years. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was recorded on 10th November, 1983, he gave his age as 22/23 years. Apart from this, there is not other evidence of the age of the petitioner available on the record. From the evidence on the record it cannot be said that the petitioner was over 21 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. Normally, for such a heavy quantity of opium the offender would not be dealt with under the probation of Offenders Act but keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has a brilliant academic career and succumbed to temptation in a weak moment I think that an opportunity must be given to him to reclaim himself so that he may become a useful member of society rather than sending him to jail and turning him into a hardened criminal. Consequently I suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner and order that he be released on probation on his furnishing within two months to the satisfaction of the trial Court a bond in the sum of five thousand rupees with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear to receive the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. However, the fine imposed on him is converted into litigation expenses payable to the State. It may be made clear here that, in view of the provisions of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, by this conviction the petitioner would not incur any disqualification. But for this modification this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.