KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sec. 397/401, Crimial P.C. the petitioner is challenging judgment dated 8.11.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 15/1993, whereby, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Munsiff and Judl. Magistrate Railmagra in Criminial Case No. 35/1986 dated 18.3.1993 by which the petitioner was convicted for committing offence under Sec. 4/9 of the of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,500.00 in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

(2.) At the threshold learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the proceedings was initiated in connection with incident which took place on 2.8.1985 in which 4 kg opium was recovered from the petitioner. In the trial however both the motbir witnesses PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal and PW-2 Madan Lal turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story, so also no other independent witness was there but the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.3.1993. Thereafter in appeal. also the appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction.

(3.) Without challenging the finding of both the Court below learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner to custody for serving out the sentence after more than 18 years from the date of judgment of the trial Court and after 26 years of the date of the incident therefore the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from six months to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. In support of the submission learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment of this Court, reported in 2002 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1655, Godha Rant Vs. State of Rajasthan in which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that incident is of the year 1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period of sufficient to exhaust any body mentally physically and economically therefore ends of justice would meet if for offence under Sec. 4/9 of the Opium Act the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.