KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) (Oral) - Petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No. 628 dated 7.10.1985 registered at Police Station City, Karnal under Section 9 of the Opium Act. On 14.11.1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act) came into force but since the petitioner was caught a few days before the enactment of the Act has been tried and convicted under the Opium Act.
(2.) CASE of prosecution is that Assistant Sub Inspector Dharam Singh of Police Station City, Karnal, was present in the Urban Estate Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal, when he apprehended the accused and from his personal search got recovered 500 grams of opium. After report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted, the petitioner was charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Head Constable Om Pal, who was recovery witness, as PW.1, Inspector Karnail Singh as PW.2 regarding registration of case, Assistant Sub Inspector Dharam Singh as PW.3 who apprehended the accused and investigated the case, Moharrir Head Constable Karta Ram as PW.4 regarding recovery of opium. Affidavits Ex. PX and Ex. PY were submitted to complete link evidence. Ex. PZ is report of Chemical Examiner regarding the presence of morphine in the opium. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though argument had been raised before Courts below that no independent witness has been associated and recovery memo was not witnessed by independent witness, both the Courts below have examined the argument and held that official witnesses and the testimony of Assistant Sub Inspector Dharam Singh, PW.3, aspire confidence and has further held that he has elaborately deposed about all material aspects and the defence has failed to cause any dent in the cross-examination. Learned counsel has further stated that since the findings of trial Court were affirmed by the Appellate Curt below, he will not be in a position to assail the findings of fact. Learned counsel has further stated that in the present case, occurrence is about 23 years old. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, which has been paid. It has been stated before me that the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial. He has further stated that in the last 23 years, petitioner had committed no such offence and has been leading a life of a honest and peaceful citizen.
(3.) TAKING the totality of circumstances, antecedents of the accused, protracted trial of 23 years, ends of justice will be met if sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be paid by him on or before 30.5.2008. Non-deposit of fine by the petitioner shall be construed as dismissal of present revision petition. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. Petition dismissed.;