Amreek Singh vs State of Uttaranchal

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Through this revision, the convict Amreek Singh has challenged the judgment and order of the Appellate Court dated 26.05.2003 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, wherein the trial court''s judgment and order dated 21.06.1999 was modified to the extent that Amreek Singh was held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 27 of the Arms Act but was not found guilty u/s 25 of the Arms Act.

Initially, the facts are that a gun was recovered from the possession of Amreek Singh, which is admitted by the revisionist himself. Learned trial court convicted Amreek Singh for both the offences under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act together and sentenced him for an year imprisonment besides Rs. 500/- fine. This judgment, when challenged in appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not have any other opinion then the trial court on the question of recovery of gun from Amreek Singh, but in the operative operation, it was stated that "Appeal is dismissed and judgment and order of the trial court dated 21.06.1999, in view of the findings in the body of the judgment, modified......". Just before the operative portion in the last para of the judgment, learned Appellate court held that the revisionist is found guilty u/s 27 and absolved from the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act.

After hearing of the contention of the either side, it is pertinent to mention the Section 27(1), as under:

(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

So learned Counsel for the revisionist has advanced his argument that the revisionist was not using or exposing the arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5. In this way, offence u/s 27 is not made out against him and for the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act which makes the provision for punishment on account of mere possession of the arms without valid licence, the revisionist has been absolved by appellate court.

Learned Brief holder for the State contended that in the last para of the judgment, there is a wrong mentioning of the section of guilt and exoneration from the charge. The same has been interchanged by some typing mistake. In the body of the judgment, the learned Appellate court has given concurrent finding with that of the trial court and only for this typing error, no benefit can be extended to the revisionist.

I do agree with the contention of learned Brief holder and it is sheer exchange of digits 25 instead of 27 and 27 instead of 25 by some typewriter. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist could have been accepted, if the findings recorded in the body of judgment, might have been inconsistence with the operative operation, but it is not so. The body of the judgment very categorically holds the fact of illegal possession of weapon with the revisionist. So, in this way, mere exchange of wrong digits as aforementioned, is of no avail to revisionist. This way, revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist prays that the case is almost two decades old and revisionist has not misused the weapon, so mercy should be extended to the revisionist and his sentence of one year may be converted to that of only undergone by him as well as with fine. It has also been brought to the notice to the Court that he has been in gaol for a month.

According to the prayer of the revisionist, I feel that ends of justice will be met, the sentence of the revisionist for one year''s imprisonment is reduced to that of period which has already been undergone by him, but fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of one month before the trial court. If the revisionist does not pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand), he will undergo two months simple imprisonment in lieu thereof. Revision is partly allowed.

Let the lower court record be remitted back to the trial court for compliance.