ORDER
1. On 8-4-1984 at about 1.15 a.m. HC Sukhwinder Singh along with HC Jai Singh, Constables Mohinder Singh and Om Parkash etc. was present near Ottu Head in connection with patrolling duty and excise checking. Balbir Singh PW was also present with them. In the meantime Sardool Singh-accused (petitioner herein) was sighted coming from the side of village Moujdin with a gunny bag in his right hand. At the sight of the police party, he swerved and tried to conceal himself behind the bushes. It gave rise to suspicion in the mind of HC Sukhwinder Singh. Accused was accordingly apprehended. That bag was found to contain opium weighing two kgs wrapped in glazed paper. 10 grams of opium was taken out as sample. Sample opium and the remaining opium were made into separate parcels, sealed with seal of HC Sukhwinder Singh bearing impression Sections Seal after use was handed over to Balbir Singh. On the basis of a ruqa sent to Police Station, Rania, case FIR No. 172 dated 8-6-1984 was registered at Police Station, Rania. Bag and sealed parcels of opium were taken into possession. Sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner for chemical examination. Chemical Examiner found the contents of the sample to be opium. Accused was charged on 28-4-1984.
2. On the conclusion of the trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa vide order dated 10-4-1994 found the charge under section 9 of the Opium Act proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.
3. Not satisfied with his conviction and sentence, Sardool Singh-accused went in appeal to the Court of Session, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa as regards conviction. He reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine was, however, allowed to remain. Still not satisfied, he has not come up in revision, to this Court.
4. At the motion stage, revision was dismissed so far as conviction is concerned, as no illegality or infirmity was noticed in the finding of guilt recorded concurrently by the two Courts below on the appreciation of evidence. Notice was issued to the State only in regard to sentence.
5. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an old man of 72 years of age. He is not a previous convict. His character and antecedents are clean. He suffered the vagaries of criminal trial for about 14 years. He has submitted that the petitioner is in the evening of his life. His track record is free from blemish. His character and antecedents are clean and this is the first lapse on his part from the path of rectitude. It would not be conducive to justice if he is sent to jail at this juncture of his life. He has submitted that keeping all this in view, he should be released on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Ajmer Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1987 (2) Recent CR 376.
6. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana on the other hand has submitted that possession of two kgs. of opium should be viewed as large haul and possession of large haul would itself be a special reason for declining him the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360, Cr.P.C.
7. Suffice it to say, possession of two kgs. of opium by the petitioner cannot constitute a special reason for declining him the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 when we look to the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has been suffering the vagaries of this criminal case for the last about 15 years. So this revision fails and is dismissed so far as sentence is concerned. Petitioner is, however, ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- for a period of two years under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. During this period he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour and during this period he shall come in Court to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so. Fine imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below will reckon towards the costs of proceedings. Bonds shall be to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Copy of this order be given dasti.
8. Ordered accordingly.