Hardip Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

For having been found in possession of a massive haul of 10 Kgs. of opium, the petitioner was charged under S. 9 of the Opium Act before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti. Finding him guilty thereunder, he was convicted and a deterrent sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ was imposed on him. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Amritsar, in an exhaustive judgment, has upheld his conviction and sentence. Hence the revision.

It is alleged that SubInspector Sardul Singh of Police Station, Valtoha alongwith Tarsem Singh, Assistant SubInspector and other officials went from village Amarkot towards Mehmoodpura, in connection with patrolling in a Government jeep. On the way, when the police party was on the culvert of Rajpura, the petitioner came from the Northern side while carrying a small gunny bag on his head. When he tried to slip away on seeing the police party on suspicion he was stopped and as a result of his personal search, 10 Kgs. of opium wrapped in a glazed paper lying in gunny bag was recovered. After completing the formalities, the sample of the recovered contraband was sent to the Chemical Examiner who found the same to be opium.

The prosecution primarily rested on the unimpeached testimony of SubInspector Sardul Singh and Assistant SubInspector Tarsem Singh. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. Kundan Singh Constable was examined in defence.

The salient feature of the case is that admittedly the prosecution witnesses have not the least aminus against the petitioner. Equally, there appears to be not a hint of explanation on the side of the petitioner as to why he was falsely implicated apart from his bald statement that this was a false case.

Faced with the uphill task of challenging the conviction within the confines of the revisional jurisdiction. Mr. Lakhinder Singh very fairly conceded that he was unable to do so. The only question that has been agitated is with regard to the quantum of sentence. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner on Santa Singh v. State of Punjab 1977 Cr. LT 367 and Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 CLR (P&H) 169. On persual of both these authorities, it is plain that they are obviously distinguishable and it is unnecessary to deal with the same individually. The trial Court expressly adverted to the question of sentence and found that the huge quantity of contraband plainly show that it was meant for trading and smuggling therein. It was also noticed that the economic nature of the offence and its effect on the society in general do not warrant the application of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate Court has also taken the same view. I am unable to take a contrary view to the valid exercise of discretion by the Courts below. There is, however, marginal scope for reduction in the sentence in view of the fact that the recovery of opium was effected as far back as 1982. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to one year but impose a fine of Rs. 1,000/ on him in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court as I feel that it will meet the ends of justice. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further imprisonment for nine months.

With this modification, the revision petition is dismissed.