CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Gulab Singh vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 December 1990 · Citation: (1991) 1 CurLJ 341 : (1991) 1 RCR(Criminal) 323

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S.Grewal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 914 of 1990
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 374 words

S.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

1.

This revision is directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Jind, dated 171190, whereby the appeal of the present petitioner filed against the order dated 1881990/2181990, passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon, convicting the present petitioner under section 9 of the Opium Act for recovery of one kilogram of opium and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month, was dismissed except that his sentence was reduced from one year RI to six months RI.

2.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

3.

According to the prosecution story, the recovery of one kilogram of opium was effected from the petitioner as far back as 1391985. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent agony of trial for about five years and his appeal also remained pending before the Sessions Judge, for three months. The petitioner is not a previous convict.

4.

Taking into consideration the nature of recovery, antecedents and young age of the petitioner, in my opinion. It is a fit case to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, to the petitioner. The petitioner is accordingly directed to be released on probation of good conduct under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall undertake to keep peace, be of good behaviour and shall appear before the Court as and when directed to receive sentence during the aforesaid period. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 500/ as costs of the proceedin. The amount of fine already paid by the petitioner (as per statement of his counsel) shall be converted towards the payment of costs. The sentence of fine is set aside in view of the authority of the apex Court in Isher Das v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295.

5.

Except with this modification, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be given Dasti.