YOG RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For having been found in possession of 5 kgs. of opium, the petitioner was charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Finding him guilty thereunder, he was convicted and a deterrent sentence of 1-1/2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 150/- was imposed on him. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar has upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision.

(2.) It is unnecessary to recount the facts of the case. The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurnam Singh, PW. 1, and the Assistant Sub Inspector Balwant Singh P.W. 2. 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 this was due to suspicion.

(3.) Faced with the uphill task of challenging the conviction on merits within the confines of revisional jurisdiction, Mr. P.S. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that he was unable to do so. Only question that has been agitated is with regard to the quantum of sentence. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on a decision of Sant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1977 CriLT 367. On a perusal of this authority it is plain that it is distinguishable. 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 public in general do not warrant the application of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate Court has also taken the same view. I am unable to take a contrary view to the valid exercise of discretion by Courts below. Five Kgs. of opium recovered from the petitioner would leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner was engaged in the nefarious trade of smuggling in opium. There is, however, marginal scope for reduction in the sentence. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to nine months R.I. but impose a fine of Rs. 500/- on him in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court as in my opinion, it will meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further R.I. for three months.