AJAIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 4th January, 1985, police party headed by Sarwan Singh was proceeding towards Bajkhana from the side of Jaitu. When they reached near the crossing within the revenue limits of village Sidda Singhwala, accused Ajaib Singh was seen coming from the side of the village. He tried to slip away at the sight of the police party. Feeling suspicious he was apprehended and his person was duly searched by ASI Sarwan Singh. On said search 2 kgs. of opium wrapped in glazed paper was recovered from the jhola, which the accused was then carrying. Ten grams of said substance were separated as sample and the sample as well as the remaining bulk were duly sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo, Exhibit P.A. Rough site plan, Exhibit P.C., was prepared and reqa, Exhibit P.B., was sent to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which present case against the accused was registered vide formal first information report, Exhibit P.B./1. Ultimately, on chemical examination, vide report, Exhibit P.D., the sample in question was found to be that of opium, resulting the prosecution and trial of the accused. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 6th of November, 1986, convicted Ajaib Singh under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ -, in default of payment of which fine he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. On appeal, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide its judgment dated 18th of February, 1987 maintained the conviction but remarked that the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Against that order present revision petition was preferred by Ajaib Singh.

(2.) NO illegality, impropriety or incorrectness could be pointed out. It was a case of chance recovery and it is nowhere indicated if the independent persons were intentionally avoided. Perhaps that is why, notice regarding sentence only was issued. With regard to sentence Mr. Brar has prayed for reduction suggesting that the revision -petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for about 1 -1/2 months. Taking into consideration that fact and also that the petitioner has faced the music of criminal trial for more than two years, I feel that ends of justice shall squarely be met with if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to already undergone. It is reduced accordingly. So far as the fine is concerned, irrespective of the apparent intention of the learned Appellate Court, his order reducing the sentence is not happily worded and can be said to have introduced vagueness. It is, therefore, further ordered that Ajaib Singh shall pay a fine of Rs. 300/ - as originally ordered by the trial Court, apart from the sentence of imprisonment and in default of payment of that fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Petition dismissed.