Pasho vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

The allegations against the petitioner are that she was found in possession of five kilograms of opium without any permit or licence on February 11, 1985. She was accordingly tried, convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment vide judgment/order dated March 11, 1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti.

Feeling dissatisfied with her conviction and sentence, she filed an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar who vide his judgment dated July 19, 1998 reduced the substantive sentence of two years to one year but maintained the sentence of fine.

Still feeling aggrieved, she has filed this Criminal Revision in this Court.

No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to convince me as to how the conviction of the petitioner is perverse. I have also carefully scrutinised the judgments of the Courts below. I find no infirmity in the same so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, I have no hesitation in confirming her conviction. JUDGMENTed accordingly.

The alleged recovery of contraband opium weighing five kilograms from the possession of the petitioner relates to the year 1985. The petitioner must have languished in the jail for some time. She has also suffered physically, mentally and economically during the last more than 14 years. The criminal revision was filed in the year 1988 and the same remained pending in this Court for no fault of the petitioner. I am aware of fundamental right of an accused as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India which encompasses all the stages, namely, investigation, inquiry, trial appeal, revision and retrial. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a lady and is having four children, in my considered opinion, judicial compassion needs to be shown in this case and by slashing the substantive sentence of the petitioner, she can be compensated for the mental agony which she had undergone on account of protracted trial. The recent trend of the Apex Court in such like small cases is also reformatory and not punitive. Taking into consideration all these factors, I reduce the substantive sentence of one year awarded to the petitioner to the one already undergone by her. However, the sentence of fine and in default thereof shall remain intact.

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

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