S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) SATPAL Singh Petitioner was charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhatinda, and having been found guilty thereunder was convicted thereof and sentences to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, adverted to all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner repelling the same, has upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment from 2 years of one year and the fine of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1000/-. He has now come up by way of revision.
(2.) ON 24th April, 1976, Sub-Inspector Major Singh of Police Station Rama received a secret information that Satpal Singh accused was indulging in the trade of illicit opium. He accordingly organised a raiding party consisting of some police officials and two independent persons, namely, Ajmer Singh and Midda Singh, from the public. The accused were apprehended and on interrogation by the Investigating Officer, he suffered disclosure, statement leading to the recovery of 5 kg. and 200 grams of opium from near the manger in the court-yard of his house. The sample taken therefrom was sent to the Chemical Examiner, which on subsequent analysis was opined to be opium. The case against the petitioner rests on the virtually unimpeached testimony of Ajmer Singh, PW1, Assistant Sub-Inspector Basant Singh, PW2 SI and Major Singh, PW3. The defence of the petitioner was rather a curious and ingenious one. It was suggested that the alongwith his parents and wife was living together in one house and the court-yard of the house was not in his possession and that as a matter of fact the police recovered opium from one Dalip Singh and since its weight was increased by mixing qur etc., the same was planted on him on the police station. Both the Courts below have rejected the plea of the petitioner and accepted the forthright testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
(3.) FACED with the uphill task of assailing the concurrent finding of fact and forthright testimony of the witnesses, Mr. Jindal has been rather half-hearted in pressing this revision. A faint prayer for invoking the provisions of the probation of Offenders Act, on the point of sentence, has been made. I am afraid the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be acceded to. I am of the view that having regard to quantity of the opium recovered, it is not a case where the petitioner deserves to be released on probation. Smuggling is a lucrative criminal activity and the only sentence that can prove deterrent in such cases is of imprisonment. There is, however, some scope for reduction in the sentence in view of the fact that the occurrence took place as far back as 1976. I would accordingly direct that the substantive sentence of imprisonment be reduced to six months. In lieu of the sentence of imprisonment remitted, I however, impose a fine of Rs. 1000/- in addition to the fine imposed by the Appellate Court, as in my opinion, it would meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.;