PAUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR having been found in posecssion of a massive haul of 10 Kgs of opium, the petitioner was charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act before the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga. Finding him guilty thereunder, he was convicted and a deterrent sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/ - was imposed on him. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in an exhaustive judgment upheld his conviction and sentence, hence the revision

(2.) IT is unnecessary to recount the facts. The prosecution case primarily rested on the testimony of Kartar Singh, Assistant Sub -Inspector and Harjit Singh, Sub -Inspector. The salient feature of the case is that the prosecution witnesses have not the least animus against the petitioner. Equally there appears to be no hint or explanation on the side of the petitioner as to why he was falsely implicated, apart from his bald statement that he was falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) FACED with the uphill task of challenging the conviction on merits within the confines of the revisional Jurisdiction Mr. Daljit Singh Walia learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that he was unable to do so. The only question that has been agitated is with regard to the quantum of sentence. The trial Court expressly adverted to the question of sentence and found that the huge quantity of contraband plainly shows that it was meant for trading and smuggling. It was also noticed that the economic nature of the offence and its effect on the society in general, do not warrant application of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate Court also took the same view. I and unable to take a contrary view to the valid exercise of discretion by the courts below. Large haul of opium recovered from the petitioner would leave no manner of doubt that he was engaged in the nefarious trade of smuggling of opium. The recovery of opium was effected from the petitioner as far back as in 1979. There is marginal scope for reduction in the sentence in view of the facts that the conviction has not been challenged and the case is quite an old one. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to one year but impose a fine of Rs. 2000/ - 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.