Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mirat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Mirat Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 06, 1987
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770995

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Cr. Revision No. 267 of 1987
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Arms Act - Sections 3 & 25--Sentence--First offence--Accused in jail for one month--100 gms. gun powder recovered from his possession--Not fired recently Held, it is interests of justice to reduce sentence to already undergone.;Revision Partly Allowed -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mirat Ram

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1987WLN(UC)760

Excerpt

arms act - sections 3 & 25--sentence--first offence--accused in jail for one month--100 gms. gun powder recovered from his possession--not fired recently held, it is interests of justice to reduce sentence to already undergone.;revision partly allowed - mohini kapoor, j.1. the petitioner was convicted by the addl, munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, dholpur for the offence under section 3/25 of the arms act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. the conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the addl. sessions judge, dholpur by order dated 5-10-1987 against this order he has come in this revision.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner has not contested the conviction on merits and from the evidence also it can be said that the witnesses have been able to prove that one kutta (gun) along with some gun powder and potas was recovered from his possession. it is contended that the petitioner has already remained in jail for about one month and that it is, his first offence and he should be either released on probation or on the sentence already undergone.3. in the present case, the gun powder recovered from the petitioner is about 100 gms. only. there is no evidence to show that the katta was fired recently. considering the circumstances, it can be said that the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioner is released on the sentence already undergone by him.4. the petition is partly accepted and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, as he is to be released on the sentence already undergone by him.

Full Judgment

Mohini Kapoor, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted by the Addl, Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur by order dated 5-10-1987 against this order he has come in this revision.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not contested the conviction on merits and from the evidence also it can be said that the witnesses have been able to prove that one Kutta (gun) along with some gun powder and potas was recovered from his possession. It is contended that the petitioner has already remained in jail for about one month and that it is, his first offence and he should be either released on probation or on the sentence already undergone.

3. In the present case, the gun powder recovered from the petitioner is about 100 gms. only. There is no evidence to show that the Katta was fired recently. Considering the circumstances, it can be said that the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioner is released on the sentence already undergone by him.

4. The petition is partly accepted and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, as he is to be released on the sentence already undergone by him.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial