DEVA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice for final disposal has been accepted by Mr. JPS Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition is being heard and decided at the admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner was convicted by the judgment and and order dated 24-11-1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, district Pali (for short, the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No. 251/78 for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The judgment and order of the trial Court came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, district Pali (for short, the Appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 48/1999. The Appellate Court, while maintaining the conviction under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentence of fine against the petitioner, reduced the substantive sentence from three months rigorous imprisonment to two months rigorous imprisonment, in default of payment of fine from one month to 15 days. Hence this criminal revision.

(3.) At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act; however, learned counsel has confined his arguments only to the quantum of sentence and submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1978 and almost 28 years have elapsed since then; the petitioner has been facing protracted trial and thereafter the appeal and revision; the petitioner is presently aged about 73 years and he has shown me the Election Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India issued on 2nd August, 2003 wherein the age of the petitioner has been shown as 70 years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner remained in custody for 7 days during trial and thereafter from the date of judgment of the Appellate Court i.e. 17-5-2006, he is continuously in custody and, thus, the petitioner has suffered imprisonment for nearing one month.