Parshi vs State of Haryana

A.S. Garg, J.

This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order of his conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hissar, dated 3.6.1988 whereby he was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1978 for having been found in possession of 21/2 Kgs. of opium and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The order of conviction was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in appeal. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced from the year to six months and the sentence of fine and in default thereof was maintained.

On 16.9.1982, the petitioner just came across the police party headed by Sub Inspector Thakar Dass accompanied by some Constables, which allegedly recovered 21/2 Kgs. of opium from a bag carried by the petitioner. 150 grams of opium was separated as sample. The sample and the remaining opium were separately sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo ExPA. A ruqa was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PB/1 was recorded. Ex.P2 is the report of the Chemical Examiner who reported that the contents recovered were that of opium.

At the trial, the prosecution examined only official witnesses. The case of the petitioner was that he was implicated in this case because of party faction and ultimately he did not adduce any evidence in defence. This led to the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence.

The petitioner has now come up in revision. The allegel recovery of opium is, however, not disputed nor controverted. The only question is that of sentence. The recovery of the opium took place as far back as 17 years ago and the petitioner had been in judicial custody during the trial of the case for about a month. In such a case after a lapse of about two decades since the original trial was conducted, no significance would be left for sentencing the petitioner any more. There is no complaint against the petitioner thereafter that he either committed any other crime or indulged in any unlawful activities. Though the recovery of the opium in question is heavy one, which took place about two decades, the interest of justice would be fully served by curtailing the litigation at this stage by ordering the reducing in the sentence to that already undergone by the petitioner. So ordered. The revision is disposed of accordingly.

Revision allowed.