Bikkar Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab Singh Gill, J. (Oral)

The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is founded on the allegations that on 23.4.1983, Inspector Kanwarjit Singh alongwith other police party was present an Bengaliwala bridge in the revenue estate of village Talwandi Nepalan in connection with the investigation of a case under Section 9 of the Opium Act against the petitioner. From the personal search of the petitioner, one Pistol .12 bore and three live cartridges of the same bore were recovered. The petitioner had no licence for keeping the same in his possession. Therefore, he was challaned and put to trial.

After the conclusion of trial, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira vide his judgment/order dated 18.1.1988 convicted the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide his judgment dated 15.9.1998.

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

To lend credibility to the case against the petitioner there are the statements of P.W. 1 H.C. Rur Singh and P.W.2 Inspector Kanwarjit Singh. They have fully supported the prosecution case in its entirety and there is no plausible ground to discard their sworn testimony. There is no reason for me to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The learned counsel for the petitioner although made some futile endeavours to assail the prosecution case but he could not succeed. The trial Court and the Appellate Court gave cogent and impeccable reasons for recording finding of guilt against the petitioner and I do not find any infirmity in the same. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is confirmed.

It deserves to be mentioned that the incident pertain to the year 1983 i.e. of about 16 years ago. He is, evidently, facing the strain of criminal prosecution for about 17 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the petitioner had already remained incarcerated for about four months. In this case, there is flagrant violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 126 , it has been held that "It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Articles 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of a protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction."

In Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(4) SCC 130 the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that "Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant has been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate, Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an antisocial offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the court should take strict view of such matter."

Keeping in view the totally of these mitigating and extenuating circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the one already undergone by him. JUDGMENTed accordingly.

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