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
5 paragraphs · 182 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction but has only prayed that leniency may be shown to the petitioner, who is a lady, in the matter of quantum of sentence.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no serious objection if the substantive sentence is reduced.
So far as reduction of the sentence is concerned, in this case the recovery of opium was effected on 24th August, 1984 and since then the petitioner Smt. Surjit Kaur who is a widow and was 50 years of age at the time of her arrest, is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings. In this view of the matter, taking a lenient view in the quantum of sentence, I reduce the substantive sentence of the petitioner to six months, specially keeping in view the fact that she is a lady.
With this reduction in the quantum of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.