Criminal Revision No.166 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.166 of 1996 Date of Decision:08.07.2009 Khem Chand .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against judgment dated 28.2.1996 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused Khem Chand against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 12.6.1993 rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar whereby he convicted and sentenced the said accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 9 of the Opium Act (for short, `the Act'). The facts in brief are that on 2.5.1985 ASI Kapoor Singh among other police officials including Bharat Singh was returning in an official jeep bearing registration No.HRT-6350 from Village Saleemgarh to Police Station Sadar Hisar after investigation of a case FIR No.124 under Criminal Revision No.166 of 1996 -2- Section 9 of the Act against Mahabir. When they reached in the area of Village Neoli Kalan, the accused suddenly appeared on the road after emerging out of the bushes with a bag in his hand. On suspicion, he was intercepted by the aforesaid ASI. On search of the bag, a tin box containing 4 kilograms opium was recovered. 50 grams opium was separated to serve as sample and converted into a parcel. The remainder was also turned into a parcel. These parcels were sealed with seal `BS' and taken into possession. The seal after use was handed over to Bharat Singh PW. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Section 9 ibid to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 ASI Balbir Singh, PW2 Kapoor Singh Assistant Sub Inspector, the investigator and closed its evidence by tendering the affidavits of Parkash Chand ASI, Constable Pawan Kumar Ex.PX and Ex.PY respectively as also the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PD. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He has put forth that he was arrested from Village Singhran in the presence of Balwant, Dharma and some other persons of the village. In defence, he examined DW1 Balwant Singh and DW2 Dharampal Singh. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he went up in Criminal Revision No.166 of 1996 -3- appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied by both the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realising that he won't be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On perusing the evidence of the prosecution with due care and caution, it transpires that no holes can be picked in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Consequently, the conviction is upheld. Counsel for the petitioner maintained that the sentence of the accused may be reduced to the already undergone. This incidence is more than 23 years old. The petitioner is facing the agony of trial since 1985. In re: Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 108, the accused was convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The occurrence being 18 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one month). An identical view was taken in Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(1) Recent Criminal Report (Criminal) 477, Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 973 (S.C.). In the instant case, the petitioner while on bail during pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this liberty. In peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (1 month and 12 days). The fine imposed by the learned trial Court is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The Criminal Revision No.166 of 1996 -4- difference of fine shall be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. In the event of default to deposit of this amount, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The learned trial Court shall send necessary intimation with regards to the non-deposit of difference of fine to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, who in turn shall take necessary steps to send the petitioner to prison. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the successor Court of Mr. Manjit Singh, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. July 08, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No