Jeet Singh vs State of Punjab

H.S. Brar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar, vide his order, dated September 18, 1990, under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The petitioner appealed against the aforesaid order of the Judicial Magistrate, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar who vide his judgment, dated July 3, 1999, dismissed his appeal.

Hence, this revision petition.

In this Revision Petition, notice was issued qua sentence awarded to the petitioner as well as about the question as to whether benefit of probation could be granted to the petitioner, or not. Report of the District Probation Officer was also called for, which is there on the file.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a first offender and he was only twenty years of age at the time of commission of the crime. He has referred to section 6 of the Probation Of Offender Act in support of his plea that taking into consideration the age, antecedents and good character of the petitioner, he may be given the benefit of probation and released on probation of good conduct. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the observations of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mahabir v. The State of Punjab, 1987(1) RCR 192 and Ajmer Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR 376 . He further submits that the petitioner has already undergone four months imprisonment in jail.

The learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, does not dispute about the age and antecedents of the petitioner, nor has he cited any authority contrary to the ones noticed above.

I have also gone through the report of the District Probation Officer, Amritsar, with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties, which seems to be favourable to the petitioner. Rather, the Report reveals that the petitioner has no other member to look after his house except his wife only who is of young age of twentyfive years. The petitioner''s father is reported is to be dead and his mother left the house to some unknown destination.

After taking into consideration the age of the petitioner at the time of commission of the crime, his character and antecedents and other circumstances stated above including the undisputed fact that he is a first offender, as also the observations in Mahabir''s and Ajmer Singh''s cases (supra), the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is ordered to be kept in abeyance and he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of probation and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner will, however, pay Rs. 1,000/ as fine imposed upon him by the Courts below. I am told at the bar that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 1,000/ as fine. That amount shall be converted as costs of the proceedings.

With this modification in the order of sentence, this Revision Petition is dismissed on merits.