IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.736 of 2003 Date of Decision 15.02.2010 Prahlad Singh Panwar ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 04.03.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner- accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 29.08.2000, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 27 (b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herein referred as 'the Act') and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. However, in appeal, sentence was reduced to two months in each Section. Petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 27 (b)(ii) and 28 of the Act for keeping in his possession 10 types of allopathic drugs without any permit or licence on 27.09.1985, pursuant to which complaint No.268-2 under aforesaid Sections was filed on 24.07.1987. The case was investigated and the challan was presented against the petitioner. Finding a prima facie case against him, he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 27 (b)(ii) and 28 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant, in order to substantiate the charges, examined K.R.Jain (PW1), Deepak Puri (PW2), Dr.Munni Lal (PW3), G.L.Singla (PW4) and Sh.Telu Ram (PW5). Criminal Revision No.736 of 2003 -2- When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for taking some lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1985. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to the pendency of proceedings in the Courts. He has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend him some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 15.02.2010 mamta-II