Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 620 of 1990 Date of Decision: 25.01.2008. Dharam Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG Punjab for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Dharam Singh was prosecuted in case FIR No.159 dated 27.6.1985 under Section 9 of the Opium Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It is stated that 9 Kgs. of opium was recovered on 27.6.1985 from the petitioner. This case is before the enactment of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Mr. Sidhu has very fairly stated that he will not contest the conviction of the petitioner as both the Courts below have returned findings of fact and is conscious that the revisional Court cannot go into realm of appreciation of witnesses. He has further stated that in the head note of the judgment of trial Court, age of petitioner is recorded as 45 years and at present the petitioner is aged about 68 years. He has further stated that petitioner, thereafter, has not been involved in any case and has been living his life peacefully as an honest and upright Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1990 2 citizen. Mr. Sidhu has further stated that sending the petitioner at this time into jail can play havoc with his health and family. On the query put by the Court, he has stated that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. Since 23 years have passed, releasing the petitioner on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985, will not meet the ends of justice because I believe in the statement made by Mr. Sidhu at bar that in the past 23 years, petitioner has not committed any offence and has also not been involved in any case. The petitioner had undergone about 15 days after conviction. Mr. Sidhu has further contended that petitioner Dharam Singh remained in jail for a few days as under-trial. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has submitted that as per information of State, there is no case against the petitioner. I find merit in the submissions of Mr. Sidhu and reduce the sentence of the petitioner to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and the same will be paid by the petitioner in the Court on or before 31.3.2008. In case the amount of fine is not deposited by the petitioner, the present revision petition shall be considered as dismissed. With the above mentioned modifications, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 25, 2008 “DK”