Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1317 (MP)

AGESINGH s/o AMARSINGH BHIL v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-11-11

N.K.MODY

body2008
JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-12-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat Distt. Jhabua in Cr. A. No. 115/07, whereby the judgment dated 13-8-2007 passed by JMFC, Jobat in Criminal Case No. 442/05, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 25(1)(B-A) Arms Act by sentencing him to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs. 100/- was confirmed, present revision petition has been filed. 2. Case of the prosecution was that on 14-9-2005 at about 4:30 p.m., upon the information, petitioner was arrested with country made loaded pistol with 12 bore cartridge, for which petitioner was having no licence. Thereafter, weapon was seized and seizure memo was prepared. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioner was convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against that order which was maintained, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that petitioner has convicted illegally while petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that petitioner was in jail w.e.f. 10-12-2007. Bail was granted by this Court vide order dated 11-4-2008 and thereafter petitioner was released on bail. Learned counsel submits that the conviction and sentence be set aside. 4. In alternative learned counsel submits that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has committed offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has committed offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower re-appreciation of evidence. Hence so far as conviction is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Courts below is maintained. 7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to depositing further fine of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of two months, for which counsel for the State also agrees, which the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. 8. In the result the revision petition is partly allowed. The findings of conviction is hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of two months, failing which the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged. Even after arrest upon depositing the amount as directed above petitioner shall be released forthwith. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the revision petition stands disposed of. C. C. as per rules.