FAQIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.7.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.3.1990 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, whereby he convicted the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) LEARNED counsel at the very out-set has contended that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner on merits and confines his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that a case under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 (for short 'the Act') was registered against the petitioner in the year 1985. The present petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 9 of the Opium Act vide order dated 5.3.1990 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.7.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. The petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing the present revision against the judgments of both the Courts below and by now a considerable period of 22 years has elapsed from the date of registration of the case. Learned counsel further submits that during this period, the petitioner has been facing a mental agony of the protracted trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over his head since then. Learned counsel has further submitted that keeping in view the facts and mitigating circumstances of the appellant, as also the fact that he is an old man of 72 years old, some leniency by way of mercy be shown in the matter of sentence against the petitioner.

(3.) I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.