Nazar Hussain vs State of Uttaranchal

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2004, rendered by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, while deciding the criminal appeal no. 61/2001, titled as ''Nazar Hussain Vs. State'', thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 19.9.2001, passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge/IV FTC, Haridwar, while adjudicating S.T. no. 106/2000, State Vs. Nazar Hussain, for the offence of Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pertaining to P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. This revisionist was tried along with co-accused Subhash for the aforementioned offences along with another offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. The allegation was that co-accused Subhash opened the fire upon the police on 15.10.1998 at about 8 PM, when the police party was patrolling within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station. On being chased, revisionist Nazar Hussain was nabbed on the spot whereas, the co-accused Subhash managed to escape from the spot. The revisionist was found in possession of a 12 Bore Gun, wherefor he did not possess any valid licence.

The chargesheet was submitted for the offences punishable u/s 307 IPC and also under Sections 25/27 of the Act. The trial court was of the view that the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence it passed the order of acquittal of the revisionist and that of co-accused Subhash. However, the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 25 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo one year''s R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further three months'' simple imprisonment. The revisionist was also acquitted by the trial court for the offence punishable u/s 27 of the Act.

Against the said order of trial court, revisionist preferred an appeal aforementioned, which too was dismissed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Feeling still disgruntled, accused Nazar Hussain has come up before this Court by way of the instant revision.

Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the revisionist, does not want to press the revision on intensive merits but he only prays that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence may be reduced and if properly deemed fit, then it may be converted to the payment of fine. The Court has also been apprised that the revisionist has been in gaol for 14 days, since 15.10.1998 to 28.10.1998 at the time of initial arrest and then further for 27 days, since 10.2.2004 to 7.3.2004, i.e. for 27 days. This way, the revisionist has been in caption for 40 days. Having heard learned counsel, on behalf of the revisionist, on some grounds, which he has put forth regarding the plight of this revisionist, this Court deems it fit to dismiss the revision on merits but reduces the sentence of one year''s R.I. to that of undergone whereas, the fine of Rs. 500/-, as imposed by the court below, is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The revisionist will deposit the fine within two months from today. If he fails to deposit the fine, as converted by this Court in lieu of sentence of imprisonment, then he will undergo further six months'' R.I. The revision is disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be remitted back.