Balam Singh. vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.

The petitioner Balam Singh was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa under section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to 11/2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda maintained the conviction of the petitioner under section 9 of the Opium Act, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from years to nine months Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentence of fine was also reduced from Rs. 2,000/ to Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of this fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. The present Revision Petition was filed with a view to impugn the verdict of the Sessions Judge.

At the time of Motion hearing of this Revision Petition, notice was issued only in regard to sentence because of the submission made by the learned counsel that the petitioner had been suffering from tuberculosis of the lungs. The report of the Probation Officer concerned was also requestioned.

In so far as the conviction of the petitioner under section 9 of the Opium Act is concerned, the recovery of 10 Kgs. of opium from his possession on July 30, 1980, has been fully substantiated by the testimony of Constable Nachhattar Singh (P.W. 1), Constable Malkiat Singh (P.W. 2) and Assistant Sub Inspector Devinder Sharma (P.W. 3). The evidence of these witnesses is free from any discrepancy or contradiction and has, therefore, been relied upon by the Courts below. The conviction of the petitioner under section 9 of the Opium Act is, therefore, affirmed.

In so far as the sentence is concerned, the petitioner is aged 55 years. In his report, the Probation Officer has stated that he is a well behaved person and is suffering from tuberculosis. It is further mentioned in the report that the petitioner is the President of the Local Cooperative Society and the Sarpanch of the village informed that the petitioner was elected for the said post on account of his integrity. However, the petitioner fell in the company of a man of bad reputation and was, thus, involved in the present case. The Probation Officer recommended that the petitioner may be released on probation of good conduct. After considering the circumstances of the case and the report of the Probation Officer, it is ordered that in lieu of the sentence imposed upon him by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner shall be released on probation of good conduct subject to his furnishing the requisite bond with one surety to the satisfaction of trial Court, undertaking to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. During this period, the petitioner shall remain under the surveillance of the Probation Officer concerned. Apart from the said direction, the petitioner is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/ as costs of the proceedings. The Revision Petition succeeds partly to the extent indicated above.