DARBARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision petition, Darbara Singh, petitioner seeks interference with the judgment dated 10.6.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dismissing the appeal of the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate lst Class, Zira under Section 9 of the Opium Act who had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one and half years and to a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

(2.) On 13.3.1984, the petitioner was apprehended in the area of village Gatta Patshah by the police party consisting of ASI Arjinder Singh, LC Kashmir Singh, Constable Gurdial Singh and Pal Singh. His personal search led to the recovery of 8 kgs. and 10 grams of opium wrapped in a glazed paper. Out of the recovered opium 10 grams was taken out as a sample and both the sample and the remaining Opium were made into separate sealed parcels and taken into possession through recovery memo Ex. PA. The case was registered against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act. After the receipt of the report Ex. PE of the Chemical Examiner, challan was put in the Court and the trial culminated into the conviction of the petitioner as indicated herein-above. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge who found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the reliable and had also rejected the challenge to the prosecution evidence on account of the discrepancy in the affidavits of S/o Shri MHC Harbhag Singh and Constable Daljit Singh. According to the petitioner, there was nothing in the affidavit of Harbhag Singh to indicate that the sample of the seal and the parcel containing the sample of the opium had been handed over to Daljit Singh for being taken to the Chemical Examiner and therefore there was inadequate link evidence to connect the safe custody of the sample sent for chemical examination. The argument has to be rejected. A perusal of the affidavit of Harbhag Singh indicates two aspects namely the deposit of the sample and the sample of the seal with him and handing over both to Daljit Singh for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. Daljit Singh in his affidavit has categorically indicated that the sample of opium as well as the sample of seal were taken by him from Harbhag Singh and he delivered them to the Chemical Examiner. In view of this, I find no reason for interfering with the fording recorded by the appellate Court that discrepancy sought to be highlighted by the petitioner's counsel was non-existent.

(3.) No other point has been urged on behalf of the petitioner to assail, the view taken by the Courts below on merits. However, it has been submitted that facts and circumstances of the case especially the period for which the petitioner has been facing the trial is sufficient to warrant the extension of the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr. P.C. to the facts of the case so as to enable the Court to release the petitioner on probation. While there is no doubt about the fact that petitioner has been involved in criminal proceedings for about 11 years, yet this circumstance by itself would not, in my opinion, entitle the petitioner to the benefit of probation as submitted by the counsel. The need for rehabilitation of the delinquent cannot outweigh the desirability of protecting the society from the deletorious effects of opium smuggling for commercial gainsc The larger interest of the society requires that big haul operations in this nefarious activity as well as their lackeys should not be encouraged by the fact that they are able to get a way without undergoing the sentence. A stringent sentencing policy is required to deter the persons involved in such trade and fence sitters who might be on the verge of joining it from getting an impression that they can get way without undergoing the sentence. A Division Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana,1984 PunLR 420 has held :