IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 68 of 1990 Date of Decision : March 16, 2010 Bharpoor Singh @ Leela ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate Ms. Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act on the allegations that on 20.11.1984, he was found in possession of nine bags of chura post, each containing 40 kgs. Vide judgment and order dated 19/20.1.1988, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi Dabwali convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 9.1.1990. He then filed the present revision which was admitted on 6.2.1990 and concession of bail was extended to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. However, he has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1984. At the time when learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him, he was 23 years of age. Upon dismissal of his appeal, he was taken into custody on Criminal Revision No. 68 of 1990 -2- 9.1.1990 and was granted the concession of bail on 6.2.1990. The present revision has remained pending in this Court for the last more than twenty years. Therefore, instead of sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, to serve the remaining sentence, his substantive sentence of imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. It is a fact that the recovery of the contraband from the petitioner was made in the year 1984. Ever since then the sword of criminal proceedings has been hanging on his head. The petitioner was in his early twenties when he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The petitioner has been enjoying fresh air for the last about twenty years after he was granted the concession of bail in the present revision. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars so as to serve his remainder sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him and, simultaneously, by enhancing the amount of fine already imposed upon the petitioner. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act is maintained. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 16, 2010 JUDGE satish Criminal Revision No. 68 of 1990 -3-