BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act by the judgment and order dated 30.1.1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi (for short, the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No.197/1980 and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The judgment and order dated 39-1-1986 of the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur, Camp Phalodi (for short, the Appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No.35/1992. By the judgment and order impugned dated 13-11-1992, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court were affirmed. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the judgments and orders of the trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court and also gone through the record of the trial Court.

(3.) At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the conviction for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments and challenge only to the quantum of sentence and submits that the Opium Act has been repealed and the matter is of 1980; the petitioner was arrested on 24-4-1980 i.e. almost twenty-six years ago and has already undergone the imprisonment for more than two months and, therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be said to be excessive.