CIVIL APPEAL 555 of 2002 on 9 October 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 21, 2009

Manoj

...........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice SabinaPresent: Mr.Anhul Singh,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General Haryana**

Sabina, J.

Petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act,1959 (`the Act' for short) vide judgment dated 9.10.2001 by the JudicialMagistrate Ist Class, Gohana. Vide order dated 10.10.2001, petitioner wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fineof Rs.500/- . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and thesame was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat videjudgment dated 14.2.2002. Hence, the present revision.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “The facts of the prosecution case in short are that on 18.7.1998,ASI Rajiv Kumar was present at Gohana Jind Road in connectionwith patrolling duty alongwith police officials. In the meantime,the accused was seen coming from the side of Industrial Training Institute (ITI). On seeing the police party, he at once turned andtried to skip away. On the basis of the suspicion, he wasapprehended. During his search, a country made pistol .315 borewas recovered from his right side `dub'. He failed to produce anylicence to retain the said pistol in his possession. Sketch of thepistol Ex.P3 was prepared. A packet of the recovered pistol wasprepared and was sealed with the seal `RK' and was taken intopossession vide memo duly attested by the witnesses. After use,the seal was handed over to Constable Sat Narain. InformationEx.PW5/A was sent to the Police Station for registration of thecase on the basis of which formal FIR was registered against theaccused for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the ArmsAct. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW5/B was alsoprepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The caseproperty was deposited with Moharrir. Later on, the pistol wasgot tested from the Armour and he gave his report Ex.P1 in thisrespect. After obtaining sanction order Ex.PW4/A to prosecutethe accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) was filed in the Court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course ofarguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section25 of the Act but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment bereduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has furthersubmitted that the petitioner has undergone about two months of actualsentence. Petitioner was only found in possession of pistol without anycartridges. The petitioner was facing criminal proceedings since the year

1988.

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence quaimprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25-ofthe Act is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of thepetitioner is reduced to already undergone by him.

Petition stands disposed of.

April 21, 2009arya

(Sabina) Judge