Kashmir Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab Singh Gill, J.

This Criminal Revision emanates from the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar on August 22, 1988 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and ultimate sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further four months rigorous imprisonment.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision.

None has appeared to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner. P.W. 2 Head Constable Sukhwinder Singh and P.W. 3, A.S.I. Jagir Singh who are the witnesses of recovery have fully supported the prosecution case. It is now well settled that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their status but when the case is based on the testimony of official witnesses, it puts the court on its guard to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. In my opinion, the evidence of these witnesses is impeccable and there is no serious infirmity in the same. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is confirmed.

The occurrence in this case relates to the year 1985 and more than 14 years have passed since then. The petitioner has been facing the ordeal of litigation during all these years. He was under the agony and pressure of conviction and sentence for all these years. Keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion plays a role and the petitioner can be compensated for the trauma which he had undergone on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution. Lenient view can be taken in the matter of sentence for the reason that damoclean sword hanged over his head for the last more than 14 years. He also must have suffered mentally, physically and economically for this petty offence. Keeping all these factors in view, I feel that the sentences imposed upon the petitioner should be reduced to the one already undergone by him. JUDGMENTed accordingly. However, the sentence of fine is not altered and shall remain intact.

This Criminal Revision is decided in the above terms.

The petitioner shall stand discharged from his bail bonds and surety bonds, if any.