Judgment:
ORDER
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the Judgment dated 28-7-1990 passed by the learned Addl, Sessions Judge, No, 2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 8/90 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 23-12-1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 397/86 by which the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to 1 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I.
2. It arises in the following circumstances :
On 17-8-1986, five live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner and on the basis of said recovery, a case was registered against him.
3. After investigation police filed challan against the accused petitioner for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
4. On 10-8-1988, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charge for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act against the accused petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as stated above.
6. Against the judgment and order dated 23-12-1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar which was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar and the appeal filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed.
7. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence under Section 3/25 of the arms Act recorded against the accused petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar but it has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that looking to the fact that accused petitioner has remained in Jail from 17-8-1986 to 25-8-1986 and 28-7-1990 to 11-9-1990 and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be Just and proper to reduce the sentence of accused petitioner to the period already undergone by him.
8. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case.
9. Since the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar have not been challenged, in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction of the accused petitioner for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is liable to be dismissed.
10. However, on point of sentence looking to the fact that accused petitioner has remained in jail from 17-8-1986 to 25-8-1986 and 28-7-1990 to 11-9-1990 i.e. for near about two months and looking to the fact that the incident took place on 17-8-1986 and more than 15 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, it would now not be proper to send the accused petitioner to Jail after lapse of 16 years for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and ends of the justice would be met if the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
11. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner :
The revision petition filed by the accused petitioner Jaspal Singh against his conviction is dismissed and his conviction for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 23-12-1989 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 28-7-1990 is maintained.
However, on point of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed in the manner that sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 23-12-1989 and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 28-7-1990 for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arm is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the order of fine dated 23-12-1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar is maintained.
Since the accused is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.