ASHWANI KUM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.RC. against the judgment and order dated 23.09.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 25/1993 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court") vide judgment and order dated 20.09.1993 passed in Criminal Case No. 475/1985. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 8/14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act to undergo 1 year's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offence noticed above. However, he has confined his arguments only to the point of quantum of sentence and submits that the incident is of the year 1985. The Dangerous Drugs act, 1980 has already been repealed. The petitioner has already undergone almost two months out of one year sentence and no minimum sentence is provided under Section 14 of the Act for the alleged offence. The petitioner has, thus, already suffered sufficient punishment by way of mental agony, physical torture and financial loss. Therefore, he may be released on the sentence already undergone by him and may, enhance the amount of fine, if deemed necessary.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgments as also the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner has rightly not challenged his conviction on merits. However, the incident relates to 1985 and the petitioner is stated to have undergone about two months of the sentence. He was released on bail during the pendency of the revision petition. The petitioner is facing the agony of trial since 1985. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period having been already undergone by the petitioner.