Ram Rattan vs State of Haryana

Amar Dutt, J.

This Criminal revision petition is directed to challenge the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jind, rejecting the criminal appeal filed by Ram Rattan son of Shiv Dhan for challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short the "Act").

The petitioner Ram Rattan was prehended on 21.10.1985 by HC Jai Bhagwan and other police officials at the bank of the canal Minor when he was moving along the railway line but on seeing the police party he had reacted in a manner which aroused suspicion. After apprehension, 100 gms of Charas was recovered from his possession out of which 5 gms of sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis who confirmed that the recovered article was charas whereafter challan was filed and the petitioner was tried for an offence under 61(1)(a) of the Act in support of its case, the prosecution had examined HC Jai Bhagwan and HC Anup Singh and tendered affidavits Ex. PX and PY and report of the Chemical Examiner as Ex.PZ. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had convicted the petitioner of the offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imporinsment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal had been dismissed. The petitioner Ram Rattan has come up in revision.

Since the counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.P. Maleri, Advocate, through whom the present petition had been filed has expired during the pendency of the revision, fresh notices were issued to the petitioner. Despite service, the petitioner has neither put in appearance nor has engaged any counsel.

With the help of the learned counsel appearing for the State, I have gone through the file. The main grounds made out in the petition was against the reliability of the official witnesses who have appeared in the case. The courts below had rightly rejected this ground of attack because on account of the failure of the petitioner to bring out any circumstance on the record on the basis of which the Court could infer that these witnesses were disposing on account of some ulterior motive and were actually inimically deposed of against the petitioner.

In view of this I find no ground for interfering with the view taken by the Courts below on the merits of the case. There is, however, another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. A perusal of the trial Court order indicates that at the inception of the trial the petitioner had indicated that he was 53 years old. He has faced ordeal for the last about 14 years from the date he was apprehended. The petitioner would now be about 68 years old. In these circumstances, when the need of speedy trial has in judicial precedents been recognised as a constitutional guarantee, I feel on account of the failure to finally dispose of the lis within a reasonable time and the fact that the petitioner who is an old man, has not fallen foul with the law on any other occasion than this, the ends of justice require that he should not be sent to jail for undergoing remaining part of his sentence. The ends of justice would be sufficiently met if after upholding the conviction, he is released on probation for one year on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period. JUDGMENTed accordingly. In case he is found to have been involved in any such offence, the probation ordered herein shall be deemed to have been cancelled.

With the above order and direction, the petition stands disposed of.

A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.