Darbara Singh vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

This revision is against the conviction and sentence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. On 18.1.1983 while the police party were patrolling, it spotted the petitioner who was carrying a headload. He was accosted and search was conducted. It revealed that the gunny bag on the head of the petitioner contained 12 Kg. opium. It was duly sealed, and prosecution was initiated. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default R.I. for two months. The accusedpetitioner took the matter to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction. He, however, reduced the sentence to R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default R.I. for one month. Against that conviction and sentence, present revision is filed.

On merits, it may be said that the prosecution has led evidence of the patrolling party. The trial Court believed the evidence of these police officials. The argument that an independent witness should have been associated while conducting the search, had not appealed to the trial Court. The trial Court was of the view that the spotting of the accused in this case was by the patrolling party, and it was not possible for the patrolling party to secure any independent witness at such time and place. He, therefore, declined to discard the testimony of the police official solely on the ground that some independent witness had not been associated while conducting search and attachment of the contraband. Certain minor discrepancies had been found to have no effect on the prosecution story.

In appeal, the Sessions Court observed that the counsel for the petitioner had not raised any argument in respect of conviction on merits, but confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence only.

In this revision, nothing is brought before me to show that the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below was contrary to the record, or was as a result of misreading of legal provisions. I find nothing wrong in the conviction of the petitioner.

The only question then remains regarding the quantum of sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge had observed that the accused was 19 years old when the offence was committed. The question of extending the benefit of probation had been ruled out by both the Courts below on the ground that the accused was found in possession of 12 Kg of opium which was a quite large quantity. Nonetheless, the age of the accused should have prevailed while considering the punishment. In this case I find that long back on 18.1.1983 the accused was apprehended. It appears that he was taken into custody after the decision of the appeal in the Sessions Court. This Court has granted bail to the petitioner by order dated 8.4.1987. Briefly stated, the petitioner seems to be behind the bars for some period. The exact period of his imprisonment, however, could not be ascertained from the papers before me. All the same, in my opinion, no useful purpose now would be served by further sending the petitioner behind the bars in respect of an offence which was committed long back in 1983. I, therefore, while maintaining the conviction, confine the sentence to the already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is set aside. Revision disposed of accordingly.