Om Prakash vs State of U.P.

K.D. Shahi, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

This revision has been filed by Om Prakash who has been convicted and sentenced to six months'' R.I. u/s 25, Arms Act by the learned Magistrate on 29.7.1983 and on appeal his conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the I Ind Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on 29.10.1983.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist did not press the revision on merits, but he argued that at the stage of trial before the learned Magistrate, he had taken a plea that the revisionist was a minor and poor and it was his first offence and, therefore, he may be released on probation of good conduct. This prayer of the revisionist did not find favour with the learned Magistrate and he proceeded to convict and sentence the revisionist. When on appeal, his conviction was upheld, the revisionist preferred this revision.

I have gone through the judgments of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge.

The revision was not seriously pressed but again the same plea was taken. The offence is of 1982. The revisionist faced the trial for about two years and then he had to prefer this revision. He was then a minor and by that date he had not been indicted under any other crime. The record shows that subsequently he faced no other trial, conviction or sentence. After a lapse of 14 years, it shall not be of any fruitful purpose to send the revisionist to jail. The revisionist had remained in custody for about 25 days.

Looking to the minority as well as poverty of the revisionist on the date of the trial. I am of the opinion that the period of sentence already undergone shall be adequate punishment for him.

The revision is dismissed. However, the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate is modified to the period of sentence already undergone. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.