Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 167 (RAJ)

Iraq Khan v. State, Through PP

2024-01-24

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.16/2020 (CIS No.16/2020) by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.590/2008, whereby, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.08.2008, Taresem Ram, ASI, PS Suratgarh Sadar prepared a recovery memo alleging therein that during patrolling, he caught a person, who disclosed his name as Iraq Khan (present petitioner). On search, a country made pistol was recovered from the petitioner without any licence. On the basis of the said recovery, police registered the case against accused-petitioner for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 14.02.2020 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence as mentioned earlier. 6. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16.03.2020. Hence this revision petition. 7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 14.02.2020 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence as mentioned earlier. 6. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 16.03.2020. Hence this revision petition. 7. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2008 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about one month & four days, out of total sentence of one year's R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. 9. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2008 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period of one month & four days incarceration, out of total sentence of one year's S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. Application for suspension of sentence has already been decided. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.