Ram Lal Vs. Rex

- - 3. it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is about 70 years of age and that his state of health is not good. he writes-to say that the applicant is about 65 years of age and that his condition of health at present is-good, no question accordingly arises as to why a lenient view of the matter be taken. considering the quantity of opium that he was smuggling and the purpose for which he was smuggling the sentences of imprisonment and fine appear to be well called for and in no way excessive.orderatma charan, j.c.1. heard the parties.2. the applicant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of bs. 500 or, in default of such, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment under section 10 of central act ii [2] of 1930. the applicant pleaded 'guilty' the charge, and as the only point that has been raised or could have been raised on behalf of the applicant in revision is that the sentences err on the side of severity.3. it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is about 70 years of age and that his state of health is not good. the jail superintendent was asked to report as what was the approximate age of the applicant and as to what was his state of health. he writes-to say that the applicant is about 65 years of age and that his condition of health at present is-good, no question accordingly arises as to why a lenient view of the matter be taken. the applicant was found smuggling about 3o sense-of illicit opium for a third party. considering the quantity of opium that he was smuggling and the purpose for which he was smuggling the sentences of imprisonment and fine appear to be well called for and in no way excessive.4. the application in revision accordingly is dismissed.