(1.) FOR having been in possession of a massive haul of 20 Kgs. of opium, the petitioner was charged under section 9 of the Opium Act before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. Finding him guilty thereunder, he was convicted and a deterrent sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on him. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, in exhautive judgment has upheld his conviction and sentence, hence the revision.
(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts. The prosecution case primarily rests on the unimpeached testimony of Mukhtiar Singh Assistant Sub Inspector PW 1 Rattan Singh Sub Inspector PW 2, Meer Singh Constable PW 3 and Bant Singh Assistant Moharrir Head Constable PW 4. When examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. He, However, examined two witnesses in defence.
(3.) THE trial Court expressly adverted to the question of sentencne that the huge quantity of contraband plainly showed that it was meant for trading and smuggling therein. It was also noticed that the economic nature of the offence and its effect on the society in general do not warrant the application of the provisions of probation of Offenders Act. The appellate Court has also taken the same view. I am unable to take a contrary view to the valid exercise of discretion by the Courts below. A large haul of opium recovered from the petitioner would leave no manner of doubt that he was engaged in the n efarious trade of smuggling of opium. There is, however, marginal scope for reduction in the sentence keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place as far back as 1980. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to one year but impose a fine of Rs. 3,000/- on him in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court as I feel that it will meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.