Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 285 (RAJ)

Tejendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2003-02-21

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 28.8.93 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur in criminal appeal No. 77/91 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 6.9.91 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padampur in Criminal regular Case No. 193/85 by which the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 25(1b)(a) of the Arms Ant and sentenced him to him to 1 year's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- in ,default to further undergo 1 month's S.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 92/84 in Police Station Kesrisinghpur in some other case and during the arrest in that case, the accused petitioner gave information 3.10.84 in respect of having a revolver of 38 bore and in consequence of that information, a revolver was recovered and a case was registered against the accused petitioner under the provisions of the Arms 3. The charges under Section 25(1)(a) and 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act were framed against the petitioner and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 6.9.91 convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.9.91 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Padampur, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar which was transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur who by his judgment dated 28.8.93 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition. 5. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act recorded against the accused petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class). Hence, this revision petition. 5. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act recorded against the accused petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class). Padampur and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur but it has been argued on behalf of the accused' petitioner that looking to the fact that accused petitioner had remained in jail from 3.10.89 to 19.10.89 an from 28.8.93 to 10.9.93 and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case. 7. Since the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Padampur and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction of the accused petitioner for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act is liable to be dismissed. 8. However, on point of sentence, looking to the fact that accused petitioner had remained in jail from 3.10.89 to 19.10.89 and from 28.8.93 to 10.9.93 and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 3.10.84 and more than 18 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, it would now not be proper to send the accused petitioner to Jail after lapse of 18 years for offence under sections 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner : The revision petition filed by the accused petitioner against his conviction is dismissed and his conviction for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Padampur vide judgment dated 6.9.91 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1s Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur judgment dated 28.8.93 is maintained. Padampur vide judgment dated 6.9.91 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1s Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur judgment dated 28.8.93 is maintained. However on point of sentence this revision petition is partly allowed in the manner that sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padampur vide order dated 6.9.91 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar camp Sri Karanpur vide judgment dated 28.8.93 for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Since the accused is on bail, he need not surrenders bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Revision Partly Allowed. *******