Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 788 (RAJ)

Navab Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-29

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11.6.90 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 45/89 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 3/25 of the Arms Act for six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, one and half month further R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.2.88, the Police received a secret information that 5-6 miscreants were seen in Angai Bandh namely Navab Singh and other accused. The Police on seeing them gave warning and with intention to kill the police party, they fired at the Police party. The incident occurred at 8.25 P.M. The police chased the accused and caught them with arms. The Police after investigation registered a case under Secs. 148, 307, 149 IPC and 3/25 of Indian Arms Act. After investigation, the Police filed challan against all the 5 accused and on committal the trial court framed the charges. The accused appellant and other accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and produced about eight documents. Statement of accused persons under section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded and they denied the prosecution evidence. 4. In defense two witnesses were produced. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned court below convicted the accused appellant as aforesaid. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, has stated that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment but requested to the Court that looking to the facts of the case that the matter is relating to 24 years back and the age of the accused appellant is more than 60 years of age and as such request that benefit of probation be given to the accused appellant. 7. For that purpose, he has cited the following judgments: 1. 1996 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 566 "Makhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2. 1999 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 610 "Ganju @ Niranjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan" 3. 2000 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 122 "Jagjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan" 8. In view of above, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the same. 10. L.R. (Raj.) 610 "Ganju @ Niranjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan" 3. 2000 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 122 "Jagjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan" 8. In view of above, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the same. 10. Learned P.P. has contended that minimum sentence is prescribed under the Arms Act and benefit of probation should not be granted to the appellant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 12. In the case of "Makhan Singh" (supra) it was contended that as minimum sentence is prescribed under the Arms Act, but this Court in view of the case of "Jugta Ram vs. State" reported in 1981 R.C.C. 1 and "Pidar Singh vs. State" 1992 Cr. L.R. which were followed in the case of "Surendra Pal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan" 1995 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 205 has held that there is no bar to give benefit of probation under the Arms Act. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the accused appellant recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur it is directed that instead of sentencing the appellant, he be given benefit of Section 4 of Probation Of Offenders Act on his entering into personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with one sound and solvent security in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years from today and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He shall also give an undertaking that during the said period, he shall not commit any offence punishable under the Arms Act. The seized arms stands confiscated to the State. 14. However, it is observed that if the appellant commits the similar type of offence in future during the course of his probation, the order passed by this Court granting probation to him will automatically stand cancelled.