NARAYAN @ UDA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. The learned counsel for the petitioner & learned Public Prosecutor agree that the revision petition may be disposed of at this stage, as the learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction and the restricted argument only on the question of sentence. Both the courts below have found the petitioner guilt for the offence under section 4/9 of Opium Act and he was sentenced to 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment of fine be was to undergo 15 days R.I.

(2.) The learned counsel states that the conviction of the petitioner u.s 4/9 of the Opium Act was rightly recorded and after going through the judgment of the courts below I am also convinced that the conviction of the petitioner under section 4/9 of the Opium Act has been properly recorded by proper appreciation of evidence.

(3.) The next contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner has been facing trial for the last 10 years and the charge against the petitioner was that 900 gms of opium was recovered from him. It is contended that in the year 1985 NDPS Act was enacted and as such the matter was dealt with by the learned trial court under the Opium Act. He further submits that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for about 25 days and the period undergone by him shall meet the ends of justice.