IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1468 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 12, 2011 Satnam Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition challenges judgment dated 31.5.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and order of sentence of the same date and the judgment passed by the appellate Court dated 2.7.2011. 2. The Trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of ` 5,000/- (in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months); and Crl. Revision No.1468 of 2011 [2] under Section 28 of the Act, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of ` 1,000/- (in default, further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month). 3. Petitioner carried an appeal. The appeal has been allowed in part while recording acquittal for commission of offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. Conviction for commission of offence under Section 28 of the Act has been maintained. Sentence, however, has been reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. It has been conclusively found that the petitioner could not disclose the name of the agent from whom he had purchased the drugs for the purposes of sale and distribution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any material piece of evidence that has been ignored by the Courts below. Learned counsel further has also not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any piece of evidence that has been perversely read so as to cause prejudice to the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 12, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Crl. Revision No.1468 of 2011 [3] 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?