- (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr. P.C., is preferred to question validity, correctness and propriety of judgment and order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara affirming the sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jahajpur under the order dated 16.5.2001 for the offence punishable under Section 4/9 of Opium Act. The trial court awarded sentence of three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 and further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that on 23.1.1983 the police team recovered about 8 Kg of Opium Milk from the petitioner and a case for offence punishable under Section 4/9 of Opium Act was registered. After regular investigation charge- sheet was filed and a charge for offence under Section 4/9 of Opium Act was framed. The accused-petitioner denied the charge and desired to have regular trial. The prosecution supported its case by getting statements of nine persons recorded and by getting few documents exhibited. An opportunity was given to the petitioner as per provisions of Section 313 Cr. P.C., to explain the adverse circumstance available appearing in prosecution evidence. The trial court by the judgment dated 11.8.1994 convicted the petitioner. The judgment and order dated 11.8.1994 was set aside by the appellate court vide judgment dated 24.6.2000 and the matter was remanded to the trial court for getting the statements of PW-8 Gheesa Lal recorded afresh. The statements of PW-8 Gheesa Lal were recorded on 20.12.2000 and a fresh opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances available in prosecution evidence was given to the petitioner on 17.2.2001. No evidence in defence was adduced by the petitioner. The trial court after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties by the judgment dated 16.5.2001 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 4/9 of Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo three months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500.00 and further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara under the judgment impugned dated 20.10.2011, hence this revision petition is preferred. On examination of entire record I do not find any wrong with the findings given by the trial court and no material irregularity is available warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner too confined the argument to reduce the sentence in view of the fact that the incident in-question is about 30 years old and the petitioner now is quite in advance age.
(3.) HAVING considered the arguments advanced I also deem it appropriate to modify the sentence as the age of the petitioner now is about 55 years and at the time of incident he was of 25 years only. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by learned Public Prosecutor that there is nothing adverse regarding conduct of the petitioner subsequent to the incident in-question.;