Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 890 (JHR)

Akhtar Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-12-23

N.DHINAKAR

body2005
ORDER N. Dhinakar, C.J. 1. The petitioner was tried along with three others. He was charged for the offence under Sections 25(1B)(a)/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act. 2. The allegation against him is that he was found in possession of a pistol, when the search party searched the house of Samim Ansari at about 5.30 p.m. on 5.5.1998. The said pistol was recovered, sent to the expert for examination and after receiving the opinion of the expert, the petitioner was charged. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 25(1-B)(a) and 26 read with Section 35 of the Arms Act. He was also directed to pay of fine of Rs. 500/-and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The present revision is against the said conviction and sentence. 3. The learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that he is arguing on the quantum of sentence and not on merits. He submits that the occurrence having taken place in the year 1998 and the petitioner having served the sentence of more than 14 months, some leniency can be shown in the matter of sentence, as regards the petitioner is concerned. 4. I have heard Mr. D. K. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 5. It is reported by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and this is his first offence. It could also be seen from the materials placed before me that the occurrence took place in the year 1998 and the petitioner had already undergone the sentence of more than 14 months. 6. I, therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, feel that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner under Section 25(1B))(a)/26 read with Section 35 of the Arms Act can be reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment of two years is reduced to the period already undergone. 7. With the above modification in the order of sentence, the revision application is dismissed.