Iqbal Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Iqbal Singh has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated 7.10.1986 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act were maintained.

The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 30.1.1993 Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar alongwith Harbhajan Singh ASI and other police officials was present on the bye pass G.T. Road Chheharta in connection with picket when the petitioner was seen coming on a motor cycle from the side of village Khasa. On seeing the police party he tried to retreat which aroused suspicion and he was apprehended. His personal search was conducted and from the back side of the motor cycle one gunny bag was recovered which contained opium, wrapped in glazed paper, 50 grams of opium was separated as sample and the remaining opium was found to be 19 kilograms 950 grams. The sample and the rest of the opium were sealed into two parcels and were seized vide recovery memo Ex. PA. On further personal search of the petitioner one. 12 bore pistol and five gold biscuits each weighing about 10 tolas were recovered from his possession. Two separate cases were got registered against the petitioner one under the Arms Act and the other under the Opium Act. Sample was got chemically examined and on completion of the investigation challan was presented in Court.

The petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act to which he pleaded not guilty. His contention was that he was falsely involved in the case after he was taken into custody in the presence of Gurdial Singh and Massa Singh, residents of village Khurmania.

The case of the prosecution was supported by Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh PW 1 and Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar PW 2. Affidavits of formal witnesses and report of the Chemical Examiner were also tendered in evidence. After going through the record and hearing the counsel for the parties the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ The appeal against this conviction and sentence was dismissed, hence the present revision petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that at the time when the opium was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner he was also stated to have been found in possession of 5 gold biscuits. The matter regarding the recovery of gold biscuits was referred for adjudication to the Deputy Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar, and vide his order Annexure ''D'' dated 28.9.1983 he gave benefit of doubt to the petitioner and dropped the proceedings against him. Motor cycle of the petitioner was returned to him in unconditionally. It was, therefore, urged that when the petitioner was not found guilty of keeping in his possession the gold biscuits, this case too was rendered doubtful and he was entitled to acquittal on this short ground. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Bhavnesh Kumar @ Pappu Versus Union of India and others, 1992(2) Recent Criminal Reports 534. In this case smuggled goods were alleged to have been recovered regarding which departmental authority exonerated the accused and it was held that the accused could approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings with respect to the same recovery. This authority is, however, not applicable to the facts of the present case as the petitioner has not approached the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers. The petitioner faced a regular trial wherein prosecution examined all its evidence and after the statement of the petitioner was recorded he was given an opportunity to produce his defence. Conviction of the petitioner was recorded after duly appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the petitioner in his defence. Annexure D shows that the police officials who had effected the recovery did not appear before Deputy Collector, Customs, for their cross examination and their statements were, therefore, ignored and it was found that there was no corroborative evidence to support the police version. The same is not the case when the trial of the petitioner was held regularly as per provisions of the law. So acquittal of the petitioner cannot be recorded on the basis of Annexure D.

Next it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that recovery in the case was alleged to have been effected in the year 1983 and a period of about 11 years has expired since the petitioner was facing this trial. Speedy trial was the essence of justice and inordinate delay in the disposal of the case itself caused sufficient agony to the petitioner, so it was a fit case where the petitioner may not be sent to jail at this stage and a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. I accept this contention of the learned counsel. The petitioner has faced this litigation for the last about 11 years and this fact alone is sufficient to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. The petitioner has already undergone a part of the sentence. So keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case I partly allow this revision petition and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner, reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine along with its default clause is maintained.

JUDGMENT accordingly