Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 342 (MP)

Guddu Musalman @ Mohd. Sakeel v. State of M. P.

2023-03-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 vide judgment dated 27.11.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Criminal Case No.1795/2015 and awarded sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to suffer one month's simple imprisonment. The appeal filed by the petitioner before Sessions Judge, Shahdol was dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2022 being barred by limitation. In the present revision, the petitioner has challenged both the judgment and order relating to his conviction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.9.2015 at 9.40 p.m., Head Constable Pratap Singh (PW2) received a credible information that one person armed with a Baka (a sharp cutting weapon) was threatening the passers-by near Purani Basti. Acting on this information, the police reached the spot along with witnesses and apprehended the petitioner along with the weapon. On being asked, the petitioner disclosed his name as Guddu Musalman @ Mohd. Sakeel. He was asked about the permission to possess the weapon but he could not produce the same, therefore, police seized the said weapon in presence of the witnesses. Accordingly, an FIR (Ex.P/5) bearing Crime No.517/2015 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Shahdol for the offence under section 25(2) of the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol. 3. The trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act. He denied the charge and claimed for trial. He did not take any specific plea in his defence and did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. In conclusion of trial, the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above, whereas, the appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by the ld. Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide order dated 6.4.2022 being barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this Court. 5. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition on the ground that the appellate Court committed error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of only 15 days without proper verification of evidence on record. Further, the appellate Court should have adopted a lenient approach in entertaining the application for condonation of delay. 5. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition on the ground that the appellate Court committed error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of only 15 days without proper verification of evidence on record. Further, the appellate Court should have adopted a lenient approach in entertaining the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned appellate order being not sustainable deserves to be quashed and the matter be remanded back for its proper adjudication. 6. However, during course of the arguments, the ld. counsel representing the petitioner submitted that out of one year imprisonment, the petitioner has already suffered more than 9 months in jail. In case of remand, by the time it will come for hearing, the sentence would have completed and this will frustrate the purpose of filing this petition. He further submitted that he does not want to press the petition on merits. He submitted his arguments only on the quantum of sentence and does not challenge the impugned conviction. It is submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty granted to him. He belongs to a poor family and is the only bread earner of his family. His family comprises of parents, wife and children who are now near to starvation as he has been confined to jail since last 9 months. The petitioner is the first offender and he is not having any other criminal case registered against him. He is basically an agricultural labour. As per prosecution case, he was having a Baka which is actually an agriculture tool which farmers/agricultural labour used to keep with them. At the time of the incident, he was going for labour work and therefore, carrying Baka with him. The police has not produced any witness, whom the petitioner had threatened. The fine amount has already been deposited. The petitioner has already undergone almost 9½ months of incarceration and there is no adverse report against him, therefore, the period of one year may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. The ld. Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and supported the impugned judgment. 8. Heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The petitioner has already undergone almost 9½ months of incarceration and there is no adverse report against him, therefore, the period of one year may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. The ld. Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and supported the impugned judgment. 8. Heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Since the conviction is not being challenged, no purpose would be served by sending the case back to the appellate Court and this Court also need not to discuss the evidence with respect to the guilt of the accused. The question, therefore, is what should be the appropriate sentence for such offence punishable under section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act. The said provision when the incident in question had occurred on 11.9.2015 prescribes imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine, but as per proviso, if there are adequate and special reasons to be recorded, the Court can impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than one year. 10. The incident is of the year 2015 and the case is pending for the last 7 years. During trial, the petitioner was on bail and did not indulge in any criminal activities nor breached any conditions of the bail granted to him. Further, it is not the case of prosecution that alleged weapon was used by the petitioner for committing some crime and there is no complaint of any crime on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has so far, during the trial and after surrender, undergone total jail sentence of more than 9 months without remission and with remission, it may go up to 11 months. He has already suffered immense trauma, mental agony and anguish. The submissions made by his counsel have not been contested by the State. In my view, these are the special reasons which satisfy the requirements of proviso appended to Section 25(1B) of the Act. This Court, therefore, invoke the powers under proviso to Section 25(1B) of the Act and accordingly, alter the jail sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below and reduce it to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 11. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. This Court, therefore, invoke the powers under proviso to Section 25(1B) of the Act and accordingly, alter the jail sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below and reduce it to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 11. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The impugned conviction is hereby affirmed, however, the term of jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The fine sentence is maintained. In case the fine amount is deposited, the petitioner who is in jail shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. 12. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of property is confirmed. 13. Record of the court below be sent back immediately alongwith copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.