Ram Pal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Ram Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 26, 1992

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/466307

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/466307
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: A.B. Srivastava, J.
Decided On: Mar 26, 1992
Case Number: Criminal Revn. No. 1599 of 1991
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 3. Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the records of the trial as well as the appellate court it would be found that the appellant prayed for granting probation before the trial court also which, however, did not accept the same. Consequently, ends of justice would be met if instead of requiring...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 5 and 25; ;Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 5

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Pal

Advocate S.K. Srivastava, Adv.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 5 and 25; ;Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 5
Reported In: 1992CriLJ2656

Excerpt

- - 3. having heard the learned counsel and gone through the records of the trial as well as the appellate court it would be found that the appellant prayed for granting probation before the trial court also which, however, did not accept the same. consequently, ends of justice would be met if instead of requiring to undergo incarceration for a period of two years as directed by the appellate court, he is released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years. the sentence awarded to the revisionist is modified to the extent that he shall be released on probation in his entering into a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the magistrate concerned to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years, and to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during the said period.ordera.b. srivastava, j.1. this revision has been admitted only on the question of sentence.2. the facts which need mention in brief are that on 10-7-1985 the station officer, police station raja ka rampur, district etah accompanied by a police party made a search of the hut of the revisionist. the revisionist was found manufacturing unlawful country-made pistols and implements for manufacturing pistols and also two fully manufactured pistols were recovered. all these articles were seized, the revisionist was arrested and a case was registered. after due investigation he was sent for trial. the magistrate found him guilty under section 5/25 arms act and sentenced him to r. i. for three years. the revisionist preferred an appeal to the sessions judge and the learned ist additional sessions judge, etah while upholding the conviction of the appellant reduced the sentence to r. i. for two years. against which, this revision has been preferred and as stated above has been admitted only on the question of sentence.3. having heard the learned counsel and gone through the records of the trial as well as the appellate court it would be found that the appellant prayed for granting probation before the trial court also which, however, did not accept the same.4. it is found from the record that the revisionist does not have any previous conviction to his credit. as per his statement recorded in the year 1990 he was aged about 32 years. in the year 1985 when the offence was committed he was aged about 27 years. the offence under section 5/25 of the arms act is not punishable with imprisonment for life. consequently, the case of the revisionist satisfies the requirement of section 5 of the probation of offenders act. the intention of law also is to afford an opportunity to a person found guilty of a crime for the first time, particularly a person of young age, an opportunity to reform himself and to come in the main stream of the society unless on the facts of the case, the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.B. Srivastava, J.

1. This revision has been admitted only on the question of sentence.

2. The facts which need mention in brief are that on 10-7-1985 the Station Officer, Police Station Raja Ka Rampur, District Etah accompanied by a police party made a search of the hut of the revisionist. The revisionist was found manufacturing unlawful country-made pistols and implements for manufacturing pistols and also two fully manufactured pistols were recovered. All these articles were seized, the revisionist was arrested and a case was registered. After due investigation he was sent for trial. The Magistrate found him guilty under Section 5/25 Arms Act and sentenced him to R. I. for three years. The revisionist preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge and the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Etah while upholding the conviction of the appellant reduced the sentence to R. I. for two years. Against which, this revision has been preferred and as stated above has been admitted only on the question of sentence.

3. Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the records of the trial as well as the appellate court it would be found that the appellant prayed for granting probation before the trial court also which, however, did not accept the same.

4. It is found from the record that the revisionist does not have any previous conviction to his credit. As per his statement recorded in the year 1990 he was aged about 32 years. In the year 1985 when the offence was committed he was aged about 27 years. The offence under Section 5/25 of the Arms Act is not punishable with imprisonment for life. Consequently, the case of the revisionist satisfies the requirement of Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The intention of law also is to afford an opportunity to a person found guilty of a crime for the first time, particularly a person of young age, an opportunity to reform himself and to come in the main stream of the society unless on the facts of the case, the nature of the crime, and the antecedents of the accused, it is not desirable to do so. In the instant case the revisionist also has till now been in jail for a period of about six months. Consequently, ends of justice would be met if instead of requiring to undergo incarceration for a period of two years as directed by the appellate court, he is released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years. To this extent the sentence deserves to be modified.

5. The revision is partly allowed. The sentence awarded to the revisionist is modified to the extent that he shall be released on probation in his entering into a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years, and to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during the said period. The revisionist may furnish the bond before the Magistrate within a period of one month. In case of default, he shall undergo the sentence as awarded by the appellate court.

6. A copy of this judgment be certified immediately to the courts below.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1992 Same Parties Ram Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh Same Subject Criminal Same Judge A.B. Srivastava, J. Acts & Sections Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 5 and 25; ;Probation of Offenders A...

Criminal