(1.) FOR having been found in possession of massive haul of 7 Kgs. and 700 gms. of opium, the petitioner was charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala. Finding him guilty thereunder, he was convicted and a deterrent sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in an exhaustive judgment, upheld his conviction and sentence. Hence the revision. It is unnecessary to recount the facts. The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of Head Constable Baljit Singh and Puran Chand Assistant Sub-Inspector. The salient feature of the case is that admittedly the prosecution witnesses have not the least animus against the petitioner. Equally there appears to be not a hint of explanation on the side of the petitioner as to why he was falsely implicated apart from his bald statement that he was falsely involved in this case.
(2.) FACED with the uphill task of challenging the conviction on merits within the confines of the revisional jurisdiction, Mr. Ghai 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. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on Santa Singh v. State of Punjab 1977 Criminal Law Times 367 and Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 C.L.R. 169. On a perusal of both these authorities, it is plain that they are obviously distinguishable and it is unnecessary to deal with the same individually. 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 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 the Probation of Offenders Act and 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. The massive 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. There is' however, marginal scope for reduction in the sentence. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to six months but impose a fine of Rs. 500/- on him in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court, as I feel, that it will meet the ends justice. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.