Judgment:
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 19.4.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banner in Criminal Appeal No. 15/1990 whereby he rejected the appeal of the accused petitioner and maintained the judgment and order dated 4.4.1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banner whereby he convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to 6 months S.I.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
(i) On 16.9.1982 on receiving information P.W.8 Sumesh Chandra Kalla, Dy. S.P. along with police officials reached Bhedana village and opium weighing 8 kgs. and 900 gms. was recovered from the accused petitioner and for that a challan was filed against him.
3. On 2.11.1983, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charge for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act against the accused petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him as stated above.
5. Aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 4.4.1990, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banner which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through his judgment dated 19.4.1991.
6. Aggrieved from the judgment dated 19.4.1991, the accused petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
7. In this case, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banner and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act have not been challenged, but the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner is that the accused petitioner be sentenced for offence under Sec:4/9 of the Opium Act for the period already undergone by him.
8. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case.
9. Since the findings of conviction for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer against the accused petitioner have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against his conviction is liable to be dismissed.
10. After perusing the record, it appears that the accused petitioner has remained in jail from 16.9.1982 to 18.9.1982 and 19.4.1991 to 7.5.1991. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a case reported in 1987 RCC 22--Narsingh v. State. In that case 26 kgs. Opium was recovered and looking to the fact that 16 years have passed, the accused petitioners in that case were sentenced to the period already undergone by them by this Court but the order of fine was separately maintained.
11. Looking to the fact that the accused petitioner has remained in jail from 16.9.1982 to 18.9.1982 and 19.4.1991 to 7.5.1991 and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 16.9.1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, therefore, ends of justice would be met if for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly this revision petition filed by the accused petitioner Godha Ram against his conviction is dismissed and his conviction for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer vide his judgment and order 4.4.1990 and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer vide judgment dated 19.4.1991 is maintained.
However on the point of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed in the manner that sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer vide order dated 4.4.1990 and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer vide judgment dated 19.4.1991 is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Since the accused petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bails bonds are hereby cancelled.