Kewal Krishan @ Bhola vs State of Punjab and Another

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present revision petition has been filed after loosing the case before the two courts below as the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar vide its judgment dated 27.9.1997 to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which he shall further undergo RI for one month for an offence u/s 135 of Customs Act, 1962. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar was filed, which was also dismissed on 9.10.2004. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on merits by raising certain arguments but ultimately he has restricted his argument to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial since the date of occurrence i.e. 19.6.1983 and now he is about 65 years of age and is not having good health as he is suffering from various ailments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record medical record of the petitioner in support of his contention. With regard to proof of age of the petitioner, learned counsel has placed on record an identity card issued by Election Commission of India, wherein, age of the petitioner has been shown as 57 years as on 1.1.2006. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of three months against total sentence of three years and he is not a habitual offender as there is no other case pending against him. He is the only bread earner of the family and has faced the agony of trial for the last 30 years. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Labhchand Dhanpat Singh Jain Vs. The State of Maharashtra, and of Jalil Ahmad, etc. Vs. State, in support of his contentions.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the custody period.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the petitioner does not want to contest conviction in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone as well as keeping in view the ends of justice; the age and medical record of the petitioner; and also, as he has faced the agony of trial for the last 30 years, the present revision petition is disposed of while upholding the conviction of the petitioner and sentence awarded to the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Sentence imposed upon the petitioner has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 7.1.2005 but the sentence of fine shall remain the same. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the present revision petition is disposed of.