Crl.Rev. No.879 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.879 of 1996 Date of decision: 23.9.2009 Jangir Singh ... Appellant versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.S.P.Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl.AG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Jangir Singh filed this revision against the order dated 23.9.1996 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide this judgment, appeal against the order dated 8.4.1993 passed by JMIC, Ferozepur, was dismissed. Vide judgment dated 8.4.1993 passed by JMIC, Ferozepur, Jangir Singh-petitioner, Pritam Singh and Pipal Singh were convicted under Section 9(1)(a) of the Opium Act (for short `the Act') and were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months, each. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.4.1984, police party headed by ASI Harbans Lal was holding a nakabandi in the area of Village Pojoke. At about 5.00 AM, car bearing No.PJF 2716 was noticed and was signaled to stop. Jangir Singh, Pritam Singh and Malook Singh were sitting in the car, whereas Pipal Singh was driving the car. One person namely Malook Singh had fled away from the spot. On search of the car, opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the dicky of the car along Crl.Rev. No.879 of 1996 2 with 400 meters of cloth. 20 grams of opium was separated to serve as sample and the remaining opium on weighment was found to be 40 kgs. Remaining opium was put into two different tins. Sample parcel and remaining opium in two different tins were sealed by the Investigating Officer with his own seal bearing seal impression `HS' and were taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. Cloth recovered from the dicky of the car was also taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Car was also taken into police possession attested by the witnesses vide separate memo. Sample parcel was sent to the Chemical Examiner and as per report of the Chemical Examiner, sample was found to contain morphine to the extent of 6.8%. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Charge was framed under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Evidence was led by the prosecution. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section recorded. The accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. After hearing learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence on the file, learned trial Court opined that the accused had committed offence under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, appeal was preferred, but the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Pritam Singh and Pipal Singh filed separate criminal revisions. Crl.Rev. No.879 of 1996 3 Crl.Revision No.818 of 1996 filed by Pritam Singh and Crl.Revision No.961 of 1996 filed by Pipal Singh were disposed of vide order dated 25.2.2008 by the Coordinate Bench. Sentence was reduced from two years to one year and six months. Fine was enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced photocopy of order dated 25.2.2008 and the same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that sentence may be reduced from two years to one year and six months and fine may be enhanced. Learned State counsel argued that with the dismissal of revision petitions of the co-accused, same order may be passed in the present case also. Vide judgment dated 8.4.1993, Pritam Singh, Pipal Singh and Jangir Singh were convicted and sentenced. All the three accused filed separate revision petitions. Separate revisions of all the accused should have been disposed of by single judgment, but revision petitions of Pipal Singh and Pritam Singh were disposed of vide judgment dated 25.2.2008 and the impugned judgment was upheld. In case present petition is accepted, then the order is to be contradictory to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench. In order to avoid any conflicting opinion, all revision petitions should have been heard together. Neither learned State counsel nor learned counsel for the revisionists pointed out that revision of the third accused, namely, Jangir Singh is pending for disposal separately. As per story, recovery is of 40 kgs.opium from the car. Trial Court as well as first Appellate Court in view of the statements of Constable Mangal Singh (PW1), DSP Harbans Singh (PW2), Constable Sukhjit Singh Crl.Rev. No.879 of 1996 4 (PW3) and Inspector Harbans Lal (PW4), by keeping in view the affidavit (Ex.PJ), opined that 40 kgs. opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused. Minor discrepancies were pointed out but the revisional Court cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence especially when two Courts below have returned unanimous finding of facts. Evidence on the file shows that the petitioner along with co-accused was in conscious possession of opium recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner simply argued that occurrence is dated 14.4.1984. Petitioner has suffered mentally as well as financially by appearing before the Court for the last 24 years. The petitioner was 28 years' old at the time of recovery. When the petitioner has already suffered protracted trial of 24 years, then I am of the opinion that a lenient view should be taken. In case the petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment as already directed by the trial Court, then he is to become hard criminal. When co-accused were directed to undergo imprisonment for one year and six months instead of two years, then I am of the opinion that keeping in view gravity and mitigating circumstances, present petitioner should also be directed to undergo RI for one year and six months instead of two years. In the light of above discussion, sentence of the present petitioner is reduced from two years to one year and six months. However, fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5000/-, to be deposited within two months from today, failing which present petition would stand dismissed. With the aforesaid modification, the revision petition being without merit is dismissed. 23.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE