Bikkar Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

This Criminal Revision emanates from the judgment dated September 15, 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dismissing the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment/order rendered by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira on January 18, 1998 convicting the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment.

Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision.

The charge against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 15 kilograms of opium without any permit or licence on April 23, 1983. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as noticed earlier.

I have heard Shri J.S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri H.S. Sran, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Before the counsel for the petitioner made an endeavour to assail the findings of the trial Court, so far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned, he was confronted with the unimpeachable and impeccable evidence brought on the record against the petitioner to prove his guilt. He then diverted his argument on the point of sentence.

Before dealing with the arguments of counsel for the petitioner on the point of sentence, I confirm the conviction of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the occurrence relates to the year 1983. The petitioner has already languished in the jail for more than four months. He further argued that right to speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The scope of this article also covers the right to have a speedy trial. A speedy trial is said to be the essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under the Constitution. In the end, be prays for leniency in the matter of sentence.

The recovery of contraband opium from the petitioner is alleged to have been made in April, 1983. The petitioner faced threat of conviction till September 15, 1988 in the Courts of learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Then he filed the present Criminal Revision in October, 1988 which is being disposed of today. Thus, he was under the agony and pressure of conviction and sentence for more than 16 years. He must have also suffered financially. He must be now remorseful for the folly committed by him.

Keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons given above, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice will be fully met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. JUDGMENTed accordingly. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact.

This Criminal Revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

The petitioner shall stand discharged from his bail bonds and surety bonds, if any.