IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.818 of 1996 Date of Decision: 25.02.2008. Pritam Singh .......Petitioner versus State of Punjab .......Respondent Criminal Revision No.961 of 1996 Date of Decision: 26.02.2008. Pipal Singh .......Petitioner versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.S.P.Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) By this common order two Criminal Revision Nos.818 of 1996 titled as Pritam Singh verus State of Punjab and 961 of 1996 titled as Pipal Singh versus State of Punjab will be disposed off. Both the petitioners along with Jagir Singh were named as an accused in case FIR No.147 dated 14.04.1984 registered at Police Station Mamdot under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act. Briefly stated that the prosecution case is that on 14.04.1984, ASI Harbans Lal along with companion police and B.S.F. officials had held a Nakabandi in the area of village Pojoke. At about 5.00 A.M., a car bearing No.PJF-2716 was intercepted by them, which was driven by Pipal Singh-petitioner. Jagir Singh, Pritam Singh and Malook Singh were the passengers in the car. From the dickey of the car, opium was recovered. Samples of the opium were drawn and were sent to the chemical examiner, who after analysis opined the same as having contents of Morphine 6.8%. Heavy recovery of 40 Kg. of opium has been effected from the car. Both the Courts below placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses consisting of PW1 constable Mangal Singh, PW2, DSP Harbans Singh, PW3 constable Sukhjit Singh and PW4 Inspector Harbans Lal, besides, prosecution has also tendered affidavit Exhibit PJ and report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PK. Minor discrepancies, contradictions and improvements pointed out before me cannot be accepted, as this Court being a Revisional Court cannot re- appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence especially when the two Courts below have returned unanimous findings of facts. No legal infirmity, irregularity or patent illegality has been pointed out by the counsel. Argument that the independent witness was not examined cannot be accepted as such a heavy recovery cannot be foisted. The lower Appellate Court has also relied upon Section 10 of the Opium Act to conclude that the petitioners were in conscious possession of opium recovered. Unable to assail the findings of the two Courts below, learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, occurrence pertains to 14.04.1984. A period of about 24 years is going to lapse. It has been stated that in the head-note of the judgment age of Pipal Singh is given as 45 years and that of Pritam Singh has been given as 30-32 years. Therefore, the petitioners have already suffered protracted trial of 24 years. This Court has taken into consideration mitigating and aggravating circumstances. A heavy recovery of 40 Kg. of opium and 24 years of protracted trial, this Court has to draw balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Trial Court has sentenced the petitioners to undergo imprisonment of two years with a fine of Rs.500/- each, which has been affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court. Ends of justice would be met in case the sentence is reduced from two years to 1½ years (one year and six months). However, sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-. Non-deposit of fine by the petitioners shall render the present revision petition as dismissed. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. February 25, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE