Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brij Mohan vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2013
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRR No.2743 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 2743 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: February 20, 2013.
Brij Mohan
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 28.08.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh dismissing appeal filed by petitioner against judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh convicting petitioner-accused for commission of offence under Sections 18A, 18(c) and 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months besides sentences of fine.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below. CRR No.2743 of 2012 -2-
Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.06.1998, District Drugs Inspector alongwith Assistant State Drugs Controller and Senior Drugs Inspector visited the premises of M/s Balaji Medical Store, Taoru. A sample of allopathic medicines, which were kept by petitioner-accused in the said shop for sale, was taken for testing as per the rules. It was found that there were some expired medicines, physician' samples 'not for sale' and some banned drugs were also stocked.
Petitioner-accused faced trial. He was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned by learned trial court. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh.
It was contended on behalf of petitioner at the time of issuing notice of motion that he did not want to press this revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. However, it was contended that petitioner deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent finding recorded by learned courts below. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court.
Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned.
CRR No.2743 of 2012 -3-
However, so far as order of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he has been facing agony of trial for the last about fourteen years and that he has already undergone about five months and 22 days of the sentence. It is also contended that he is not a previous convict and he is the sole bread earner of the family having two children, wife and old parents to look after.
This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State. He has also placed on record custody certificate of petitioner, which shows that he is not involved in any other case and he has already undergone about five months and 22 days of the sentence.
Taking into consideration these facts, I am of the view that petitioner deserves some leniency in the matter of sentence.
Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner during investigation, trial and during pendency of appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh and revision before this Court.
Disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 20, 2013. JUDGE 'om'