KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by Krishan Lal son of Lal Chand, Prisoner, through Jail, against a concurrent decision of two Courts below, as per which he was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced by the trial Court to 1 -1/2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for four months. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, while maintaining the aforesaid conviction, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment, but the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/ - and the imprisonment in default of payment thereof, were maintained.

(2.) THE learned counsel amicus curiae for the petitioner has referred to the evidence on the record and has tried to contend that the prosecution had not brought home the guilt against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that according to the statement of Head Constable Jagrup Singh (PW -1) the place of recovery was 3/4 kms. from the Police Station, but this distance was given by Assistant Sub -Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW -2) as about one Kilometre. I do not think, much importance can be attached to this minor discrepancy. On the material allegations of the prosecution in respect of the recovery of the opium, the prosecution witnesses have given a consistent account. Even though these witnesses are official witnesses, their testimony cannot be discarded because of their official garb. Moreover, it was a case of chance recovery when the Police Party which was on patrol, came across the petitioner on the bridge of the canal minor. After considering the entire evidence, I find that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act is well -based and the same is maintained.

(3.) ON the question of sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel amicus curiae that the petitioner after the dismissal of his appeal by the Sessions Judge on August 7, 1984 has been behind the bars throughout, which means that he has undergone a sentence of more than 5 -1/2 months till date. Apart from this, the petitioner is said to have been confined as an under -trial for about 3 -1/2 months and this confinement is also to be taken into account. The submission is that the period of confinement undergone by the petitioner may be deemed sufficient punishment for the purpose of the present case. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel on this point. Accordingly the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period of confinement already undergone by him. In view of the substantial confinement undergone by the petitioner, there is no need to impose any fine upon him. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/ - is, therefore, remitted. The fine, if paid shall be refunded to him. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner who is present in Court, in custody, shall be released forthwith. Petition dismissed.