IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1992 Date of Decision : January 06, 2010 Surinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral): Aggrieved of his conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentence of imprisonment for 9 months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the trial Court and dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court, the accused-petitioner has filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of opium on 24.1.1985 at 7.45 P.M. in the area of village Bhanohar in District Ludhiana. He could not produce any valid licence or permission for keeping the opium in his possession. Crl. Revision No.402 of 1992 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. Instead, he argued that the petitioner was recorded by the trial Court to be of 55 years of age and by now he must be about 80 years. The petitioner is not a previous convict. Moreover, after the dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court, he remained in custody for more than one month whereafter he was released on bail. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. Learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of large quantity of opium and,therefore,he is not entitled to any leniency in the matter of sentence. The recovery was effected on 24.1.1985. The age of the petitioner was noticed as 55 years in the judgment passed by the trial Court. A period of 25 years has passed since the date of recovery from the petitioner. As such the petitioner would be almost 80 years of age by now. There is no material on the record from which it can be made out that the petitioner was earlier involved in any similar crime. Moreover, after dismissal of his appeal by the learned appellate Court on 11.6.1992, the petitioner filed the present revision which was admitted by this Court on 14.7.1992 and he was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioner had been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 25 years. No useful purpose would be served by Crl. Revision No.402 of 1992 -3- sending him behind the bars once again so as to undergo the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the petitioner can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation in addition to the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon him. Resultantly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Opium Act is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, he shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. In case he has not paid the fine imposed by the trial Court, he shall pay the same or else undergo the default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 06, 2010 JUDGE satish