SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR being in possession of 2 kgs. of opium the petitioner was convicted by the trial Magistrate under Section 9 of the Opium Act. He was awarded sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. He has now filed this revision against his conviction and sentence which was admitted only to consider the matter of sentence.

(2.) THE petitioner is a first offender. He has been facing criminal prosecution for about 3 -1/4 years and has already undergone more than two months' rigorous imprisonment. In the light of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar v. The State of Haryana, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 607 : 1984 P.L.R. 429, the quantity of opium recovered from him cannot be considered to be a large haul and, therefore, it does not tantamount to a special reason within the meaning of Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for declining of benefit of probation to him under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view, therefore, it is a fit case wherein benefit of probation should be afforded to the petitioner. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended and he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of probation and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner will also pay Rs. 500/ - as costs of proceedings. If he has already deposited the fine, it may be adjusted towards the same.

(3.) WITH this modification in the order of sentence this revision is dismissed on merits. Petition dismissed.