Gurvinder Singh vs State Of Haryana

Hari Pal Verma, J

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad

whereby his appeal against judgment of conviction dated 20.10.2009 and order of sentence dated 21.10.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Fatehabad was dismissed.

Briefly stated, FIR No.574 dated 21.09.2002 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, the Arms Act) was registered against the petitioner-

accused at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad with the allegations that on 21.09.2002 at about 10.15 A.M., ASI Ramesh Kumar along with other police

officials was present at the bus stop of village Hanspur for crime checking. One Pargat Singh son of Nihal Singh met him and when the ASI was

talking to him, a person was seen coming on feet from village Sardulpur side. Noticing the police party, the said person sat on the roadside on the

pretext of urination. However, on the basis of suspicion, ASI Ramesh Kumar apprehended him and asked his name and address. His personal search

was conducted and a country-made pistol .315 bore along with one live cartridge of the same bore was recovered from his conscious possession. The

accused could not produce any licence for keeping the case property in his possession. The pistol and the cartridge were taken in possession vide

separate recovery memo. Investigation was conducted. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in the Court.

Copy of the Challan was supplied to the accused free of cost as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On finding a prima-facie case against the

petitioner, charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against him to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 20.10.2009 held the petitioner guilty under Section 25 of

the Arms Act and convicted him accordingly. Vide separate order dated 21.10.2009, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, the

petitioner-accused was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, the petitioner-accused filed an appeal before the Court of Session, but vide judgment dated 03.05.2012,

the said appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Court.

This Court vide order dated August 07, 2012 suspended the sentence of petitioner during pendency of the petition. The petitioner was ordered to be

released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments to the

extent that considering the custody of the petitioner, the sentence awarded by the appellate Court be reduced to the period already undergone by the

petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that as against the awarded sentence of 1 year, the petitioner has already undergone 3 months and 10 days

till 08.08.2012. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a first time offender and is a poor person. There is no other case pending against him.

The FIR in question was registered against him as far back as on 21.09.2002 and since then, he has been suffering the agony of criminal proceedings.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has not disputed the custody of the petitioner, but opposed the plea of taking liberal view, as raised by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on

record while holding the petitioner guilty for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellate Court has also rightly dismissed

the appeal with modification in the order of sentence. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the Courts below which

may warrant interference of this Court. Even otherwise, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the

judgments of conviction and restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed.

However, as regards plea of the petitioner that he is a first time offender; no other case is pending against him; has been suffering the agony of

criminal proceedings since 21.09.2002, the date when the FIR in question was registered against him, and as against the awarded sentence of 1 year

by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court, he has already undergone 3 months and 10 days, this Court finds that prayer made by

learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him, carries weight.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Versus State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 695 had reduced the sentence of 7 years under Section 25 of the Act

to the period already undergone (more than 5 years) by the accused. Similarly, in the case of Kirpal Singh Versus State of Punjab 2009(1) AICLR

243, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has three children; there is no one to look after his family and has already undergone

sentence of more than 5 months out of total sentence of one year, had reduced the sentence of petitioner to the period already undergone by him.

Moreover, in the cases of Shiv Kailash Versus The State of Punjab 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 438; Jagdeep Singh @ Neetu Versus State of Punjab,

2013(2) Law Herald 1849 and Sukhdev Singh Versus State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 694, similar view has been adopted by this Court.

Therefore, taking into consideration the pleas of petitioner and also the judgments referred hereinabove, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner

under Section 25 of the Arms Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.500/-as

imposed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court.

Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2009 passed by learned trial Court reveals that the fine of Rs.500/- imposed by the trial Court has

already been deposited by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of fine of Rs.4,500/- with the Court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad within a period of one month from today, failing which the present revision petition shall be deemed to be

dismissed in toto.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the present revision petition stands dismissed.