Ajmer Singh vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—This revision petition is in respect of the judgment dated 20.8.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala

dismissing the appeal of the Ajmer Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the judgment dated 22.9.1989 passed by Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala convicting the Petitioner u/s 9(a) of the Opium Act, 1878 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

2-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment to fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Factual matrix of the case as unfolded by the prosecution during the trial, is that on 13.6.1985, Sudesh Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police Station

Dhanaula accompanied by ASI Amar Singh and other police officials was present on the canal bridge in the area of village Harigarh in connection

with investigation of a case. In the meantime, a truck bearing Reg. No. PUK-1461, driven by the Petitioner came from the side of Sangrur.

Baljinder Singh was sitting on his left side on the front seat of the truck. On seeing the police party, Baljinder Singh succeeded in running away,

whereas, the Petitioner was apprehended and on search of the truck, he was found in possession of 151 gunny bags, containing 45 kgs. poppy

husk each and also 60 kgs. Opium, which was lying in the tool box. Out of the bag, a sample of 250 gms of poppy husk was drawn from each bag

and the samples were sealed with the seal bearing impression `SKS''. The contraband was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. The truck

was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PD. Ruqa Ex. PE was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which First Information Report Ex.

PE/1 was registered against the accused. It would also be pertinent to mention here that out of the opium recovered, a sample of 250 gms was

drawn and was sealed with the same seal and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB. A separate FIR was regarding the recovery of

opium of Ex. PH/1 was registered in Police Station Dhanaula.

The completion of investigation was followed by a report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the charge framed

against him u/s 9 of the Opium Act. It would be pertinent to mention here that both the challans i.e. regarding poppy husk and opium, were

consolidated and a joint trial was held.

In order to seek conviction of the Petitioner, the prosecution examined Amar Singh ASI (PW-1) and Sudesh Kumar Inspector (PW-2) both the

witnesses of the recovery. The accused in his statement made u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. He further took the stand that he came to Dhanaula on

11.6.1985 for transporting cattle in his truck. The police demanded his truck in `begar'' and on his refusal to oblige them, he was involved in this

false case. In defence, the Petitioner examined Ranjit Singh as DW-1.

Ultimately, the trial Court ended in conviction of the Petitioner u/s 9(a) of the Opium Act, whereas, Baljinder Singh alias Goggi (non- Petitioner)

was acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, the trial Court issued a separate show-cause notice to the owner of the truck bearing

Reg. No. PUK-1461, regarding confiscation of the truck to the State. On appeal, the Petitioner could also not succeed. Hence, this petition.

At the very outset, counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the judgment only on the point of sentence. While pleading some leniency on the

ground that he has already suffered a lot due to the longevity of the trial and pendency of the present revision and that since the year 198 till today,

he has not committed any other offence.

After due deliberations and considerations, it would not be inappropriate to mention that on the appreciation of evidence, the guilt of the

Petitioner stands established beyond reasonable doubt. There are concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the recovery of poppy husk

from the accused and nothing substantive could be detected to disturb such findings. The conscious possession of the Petitioner stands proved as

at the relevant time, he was driving the truck, therefore, he was supposed to know the contents of such large number of bags and the contents of

tool box, where the opium was allegedly placed. The fact that he tried to run away also indicates towards his knowledge of the contents loaded in

the truck. At the same time, since the Petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction, that also impels me not to doubt the prosecution

version.

Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the Petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 28.9.2005 mentioning that he remained in custody for 7-1/2

months during the trial as well as after conviction and after his release on bail, he has neither committed any offence, nor convicted in any other

case. Even otherwise, the case was registered against the accused as far back as in the year 1985. The sword of sentence remained hanging over

his head since then. Much water has flowed during his period of more than 22 years. Though, in case of heinous crimes, pertaining to recovery of

such heavy quantity of contraband, time could not be instrumented as a shield for exonerating the Petitioner, yet, simultaneously, the other

circumstances, referred to above, could be taken into consideration as mitigating circumstances for modification in the sentence.

Consequently, the revision preferred by the Petitioner is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that it is reduced to

rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, the fine imposed on the Petitioner is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-, which would be deposited within

three months from today, failing which the revision would be treated as dismissed in toto.