Judgment:
Criminal Revision No.2040 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2040 of 2005 Date of Decision: January 23, 2014 Sandeep @ Sheelu @ Gugan .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.RS Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in terms of which the judgment of conviction dated 10.2.2005 and order of sentence dated 11.2.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat holding the petitioner to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, has been affirmed.
2. The petitioner was apprehended by the police party headed by Head Constable Dharampal on 28.4.1999 and was found in possession of a country-made pistol of .315 bore along Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.04 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revision No.2040 of 2005 2 with a cartridge inscribed with 8MM KF-92. The pistol and cartridge were taken into possession and recovery memo was prepared. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station and a formal First Information Report was registered. After obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate and upon completion of all the codal formalities, the petitioner was challaned under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed by the trial Court vide order dated 9.12.1999 and the petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced five official witnesses and the accused did not adduce any evidence. Concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below holding the accused to be unlawfully carrying the country-made pistol and one live cartridge. Such finding recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court is based on due appreciation of cogent and consistent evidence.
4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he would not have much to say insofar as assailing the conviction of the petitioner on merits. However, learned counsel would pray for the indulgence of this Court insofar as quantum of sentence is concerned.
5. Learned State counsel has produced, during the course of hearing, the jail custody certificate of the petitioner dated 22.1.2014. A perusal of the same would reveal that the petitioner has undergone a total custody period of one month and 20 days. He had been released on bail on 7.12.2005 on account of the Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.04 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revision No.2040 of 2005 3 suspension of his sentence ordered by this Court during pendency of the revision petition.
6. It has gone undisputed that the petitioner was a first time offender and there are no other criminal proceedings pending against him. The recovery of the weapon as also cartridge from the petitioner relates back to the year 1999. The petitioner has already faced a protracted trial of more than a decade. Even the concession of bail granted to the petitioner in the year 2005 has since not been mis-used. The petitioner has already undergone a period of one month and 20 days out of the substantive sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded to him.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. In taking such view, I would draw support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010(5) RCR (Criminal) 415, which were in the following terms: “The sole appellant was convicted under Section 399 read with Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment a period of five years. He was further convicted under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the sentence of imprisonment Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.04 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revision No.2040 of 2005 4 awarded against his client may be reduced to the period already undergone because the occurrence had taken place twenty nine years ago and he has remained in custody for a period of more than six months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prayer is reasonable and deserves to be granted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.”. 8. In view of the reasons recorded above, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld and the revision petition to such extent is dismissed. However, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
9. The petitioner, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
10. Revision petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) January 23, 2014 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter?. (Yes/No) Malik Sushama Rani 2014.02.04 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document