Paul Singh vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J.

Affidavit of Manjit Kaur wife of the petitioner filed in Court is taken on record.

This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 1st March, 1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class Barnala and the judgment dated 22nd July, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 1st March, 1995 had convicted the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was required to undergo R.I. for four months. The petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial court and the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide judgment dated 22nd July, 1995.

Notice of this revision petition was issued on 11th September, 1995, but the notice was, however, limited on the quantum of sentence only.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Dhillon, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner had been facing trial for the last about ten years and he has already undergone sentence for a period of about ten months. He further submits that the amount of fine has already been paid. The learned counsel also submits that this is the first conviction of the petitioner. The petitioner is a poor man and has got four minor children including three daughters. He, therefore, contends that substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to one already undergone. In support of the submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Joginder Sigh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) Recent Criminal Reports 299 .

Keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the petitioner has not been previously convicted and he has been facing trial for the last ten years, I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from two years to one year. Accordingly, I order that substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from two years to one year R.I.

With this modification in the quantum of sentence, the revision petition is dismissed on merits.