Karnail 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 15.10.1982 he was found driving scooter No. PBA4044 while his mother Kulwant Kaur was sitting on the pillion seat. On suspicion, they were stopped by the police party head by ASI Kuldip Singh. Karnail Singh petitioner ran from the spot while his mother was apprehended. From the foot board of the scooter, a gunny bag containing 82 kilograms of opium was recovered. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioner and his mother were challened.

The petitioner and his mother were put to trial and after the conclusion of the same, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide his order dated 14.8.1987 acquitted Kulwant Kaur by giving her the benefit of doubt but convicted Karnail Singh petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Feeling aggrieved against his conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 6.7.1988. Hence this Criminal Revision before this Court.

I have heard Shri K.D.S. Hooda, 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 are the statements of P.W. 2 ASI Ajmer Singh and P.W. 3 Inspector Kulwant Singh. They have fully supported the prosecution case in its entirety and there is no plausible ground to discard their sworn testimony. The recovery in this case is very heavy and there is no reason for me to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been falsely implicated because such a large quantity of opium cannot be planted. The learned counsel for the petitioner although made some futile endeavours to assail the prosecution case but he could not succeed. It was a chance recovery. It has come in the statements of the official witnesses that they had tried to join independent witnesses but none was ready. 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 pertains to the year 1982 i.e. of about 17 years ago. No material has been brought on the record that the petitioner is previous convict. 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 one and half month. Keeping in view the totality of facts and 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 and the amount of fine be enhanced to Rs. 3,000/. JUDGMENTed accordingly. However, in default of payment of enhanced amount of fine, the petitioner will undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The amount of fine of Rs. 500/ if already deposited by the petitioner will be adjusted against the enhanced amount of fine.

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

JUDGMENT accordingly.