Bakshish Singh @ Shisha Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

R.C. Khulbe, J

This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397/ 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is

directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Criminal Case No.2077 of 2008, State

Vs. Bakshish Singh @ Shisha Singh, whereby, the Trial Court has convicted the revisionist u/s 25 of the Arms Act and awarded two years’ R.I.

with fine of Rs.1000/-, as well as judgment and order dated 16.07.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kashipur, in CRLA No.117 of 2009,

Bakshish Singh @ Shisha Singh v. State, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the

Trial Court.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an FIR was lodged on 11.2.1995 at P.S. Bazpur against the revisionist under the Arms Act. After

investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s 25 Arms Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken. After supplying the copies as prescribed u/s 207 Cr.P.C.,

the learned Magistrate framed the Charge on 15.4.1998. The prosecution produced PW1 S.I. S.P. Singh, PW2 Mohd. Asif and PW3 S.I. Nirbikar.

After recording the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. After hearing both the parties, the Trial

Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist on 4.12.2009, as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist filed

criminal appeal No.117 of 2009 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kashipur, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order

dated 4.12.2009 passed by the Trial Court. Hence the present revision has been filed assailing both the judgments passed by the Courts below.

This Court has also gone through the statements of witnesses, namely, PW1 S.I. S.P. Singh, PW2 Mohd. Asif and PW3 S.I. Nirbikar. The

testimony of the above witnesses is not only natural but also trustworthy. They have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination during trial but

nothing has come out in their evidence, which may create any reasonable doubt in their testimony. From the perusal of the evidence, I also came to

the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the revisionist. The conviction

recorded by the trial court against the revisionist u/s 25 Arms Act suffers from no illegality.

As regards the sentence is concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist fairly submitted that the prosecution has

successfully proved the charge against the revisionist and she does not want to argue the revision on merits; the matter relates to the year 1995; the

revisionist has been sentenced by the Trial Court for 2 years which is on a higher side; and requested that the sentence passed by the Trial Court may

be reduced.

Considering the facts of the present case viz. the matter relates to the year 1995, only a D.B.B.L. gun of 12 bore with 6 cartridges has been

recovered from his possession, thus, in the present circumstances, one year imprisonment is sufficient to serve the purpose.

Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction part u/s 25 Arms Act is left intact. However, as far as sentence part is concerned, the

sentence awarded to the revisionist is reduced to one year R.I. instead of two years as awarded by the Trial Court. However, the revisionist will

deposit the fine as imposed by the Trial Court, within one month, if not already paid. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is modified to

the aforesaid extent only.

The period already undergone by the revisionist, in jail, shall be set off from the sentence now modified by this Court as per Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.