AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 172 wordsA.K. Mathur, J.—Heard learned Counsels. The accused has been convicted u/s 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 month''s, R.I.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenging the conviction and only prays that sentence should be reduced as the accused is 60 years of age, therefore, sentence may be reduced. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case that incidence is of the year 1981 and accused is 60 years of age, therefore, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of the. accused petitioner from 1 year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- to 6 month''s R.I. without fine.
In the result I allow the revision petition in part, conviction of the accused petitioner is maintained u/s 9 of the Opium Act. How ever, his sentence is reduced from 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- to 6 month''s R.I. without any fine.