RAMESH KUMAR ALIAS KALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESH Kumar alias Kala was intercepted by police party headed by A.S.I. Narjinder Singh on 13th of October, 1981 within the revenue limits of village Badhni Kalan near Abohar Branch Canal, when he was coming from the side of village Daudhar along with canal bank. His person was duly searched by the Assistant Sub Inspector and on said search 4 -/12 kilograms (wrongly mentioned in the two judgments of both the lower courts as five kilograms) of opium was recovered from bag, Exhibit P.2, which the accused was carrying in his hand. Sample weighing 10 grams were separated and both sample and the remaining bulk of the opium were duly sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo, Exhibit P.A., wherein the correct quantity of the commodity is mentioned, Ruqa was sent to the concerned Police Station, on the basis of which present case was registered. On chemical analysis it was opined by the Chemical Examiner that the sample was opium with morphine content as 2.8 per cent, vide his report, Exhibit P.D. The accused was thereafter challaned and tried by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, who, vide his judgment dated 7th of February, 1984, convicted him under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default of payment of which fine he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five months. The appeal of the accused directed against that judgment was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide her judgment dated 3rd of December, 1984, maintaining both conviction and sentence. Petitioner Ramesh Kumar has now come in revision.

(2.) SHRI H.S. Gill, Advocate, who has addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner, has failed to point out any serious defect in the case. He has conceded that there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness so far as the conviction of the accused under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act, is concerned, and has simply prayed for reduction in sentence, which according to him is excessive. Perusal of the record has revealed that petitioner Ramesh Kumar has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for more than three months. His appeal was dismissed on 3rd of December, 1984. Thereafter, his revision was admitted on 28th of February, 1985, and order for bail was passed on the same day by this court. He was released on 1st of March, 1985, as per intimation sent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. As under trial he remained behind the bars for about ten days. As per order of the trial Magistrate dated 7th of February, 1984, amount of fine had already been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has also suffered music of criminal litigation for about 5 -1/2 years. In these circumstances, I do not think it worthwhile to send him back in jail even if it may be considered that the trial Court did not err in awarding the sentence to the petitioner. The sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner accordingly is reduced to already undergone. The revision petition be treated to have been accepted to that extent day. Petition accepted.