Present: Mr. Akshay JaIn Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1092106
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-11-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Akshay JaIn Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl.revn. no.548 of 2006 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl.revn. no.548 of 2006 (o&m) date of decision : 11.09.2013 gurmeet singh @ giti ......petitioner versus state of haryana ...respondent coram: hon'ble ms.justice ritu bahri present: mr.akshay jain, advocate for the petitioner. mr.shivendra swaroop, aag, haryana 1. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. *** ritu bahri , j. challenge is to the order dated 25.02.2006 passed by additional sessions judge, sirs.whereby the judgment dated 11.09.2002 passed by the judicial magistrate ist class, sirs.has been upheld. petitioner was convicted for one year and to pay a fine of rs.1000/- under section 25 of the arms act (for short 'the act') . in default of payment of fine to further undergo arora gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl.revn. no.548 of 2006 (o&m) -2- rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. brief facts of the case are as that on 13.02.1996 hc kishan singh along with other police officials was present at kanganpur road in connection with investigations f.i.r no.396/94 under sections 457/380 ipc where one neki ram sawan met kishan singh, hc and was talking to him. in the meantime, accused was seen coming from village begu side and on seeing the police party turned back towards mela ground. on suspicion, he was apprehended. on interrogation, he disclosed his identity as gurmeet singh. from his personal search, one pistol of .12 bore and one live cartridge of the same bore were recovered. he could not produce any permit or licence for retaining the same. ruq was sent to the police station and thereafter, f.i.r was registered against the petitioner. after completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court. copies of documents was provided to the accused under section 207/208 cr.p.c.vide order dated 04.06.1997 charges were framed against the accused for having committed an offence punishable under section 25 of the act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. prosecution examined p.w.1 to p.w.4 in order to arora gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl.revn. no.548 of 2006 (o&m) -3- prove the case. statement of the accused under section 313 cr.p.c was recorded thereafter and he pleaded his false implication. the trial court after going through the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to conclusion that the accused/petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid offence. the lower appellate court has affirmed the findings given by the trial court. hence, the present revision petition. during the pendency of the present revision petition, this court vide order dated 09.03.2006 had suspended the sentence of the petitioner, till the decision of the present revision petition. the petitioner at that time has undergone about one month imprisonment out of total imprisonment of one year. the petitioner was not carrying licence which is mandatory as per section 3 of the arms act. as per section 25 of the arms act, the punishment for violating the provisions of section 3 of the arms act have been laid down as under:- “25. punishment for certain offences. xxx xxx xxx xxx (1b) whoever-- (b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or arora gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl.revn. no.548 of 2006 (o&m) -4- description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [ one year].but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine: provided that the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [ one year].“ learned counsel for the petitioner, during the cours.of arguments, does not challenge the conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone. learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1996 and a period of 17 years have already gone by. petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spinning over a period of time. the petitioner is a firs.time offender and is the sole bread earner of his family. accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. hence, the conviction of the petitioner under section 25 of the act is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of arora the gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl.revn. no.548 of 2006 (o&m) -5- petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by him. with the above modification/direction, the present petition stands disposed of. (ritu bahri) judge september 11, 2013 g.arora arora gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

Crl.Revn.

No.548 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn.

No.548 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2013 Gurmeet Singh @ Giti ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.Akshay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

*** RITU BAHRI , J.

Challenge is to the order dated 25.02.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, SiRs.whereby the judgment dated 11.09.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SiRs.has been upheld.

Petitioner was convicted for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act (for short 'the Act') .

In default of payment of fine to further undergo Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.Revn.

No.548 of 2006 (O&M) -2- rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

Brief facts of the case are as that on 13.02.1996 HC Kishan Singh along with other police officials was present at Kanganpur road in connection with investigations F.I.R No.396/94 under Sections 457/380 IPC where one Neki Ram Sawan met Kishan Singh, HC and was talking to him.

In the meantime, accused was seen coming from village begu side and on seeing the police party turned back towards mela ground.

On suspicion, he was apprehended.

On interrogation, he disclosed his identity as Gurmeet Singh.

From his personal search, one pistol of .12 bore and one live cartridge of the same bore were recovered.

He could not produce any permit or licence for retaining the same.

Ruq was sent to the police station and thereafter, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner.

After completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

Copies of documents was provided to the accused under Section 207/208 Cr.P.C.Vide order dated 04.06.1997 charges were framed against the accused for having committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 in order to Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.Revn.

No.548 of 2006 (O&M) -3- prove the case.

Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded thereafter and he pleaded his false implication.

The trial Court after going through the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to conclusion that the accused/petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid offence.

The lower appellate Court has affirmed the findings given by the trial Court.

Hence, the present revision petition.

During the pendency of the present revision petition, this Court vide order dated 09.03.2006 had suspended the sentence of the petitioner, till the decision of the present revision petition.

The petitioner at that time has undergone about one month imprisonment out of total imprisonment of one year.

The petitioner was not carrying licence which is mandatory as per Section 3 of the Arms Act.

As per Section 25 of the Arms Act, the punishment for violating the provisions of Section 3 of the Arms Act have been laid down as under:- “25.

Punishment for certain offences.

xxx xxx xxx xxx (1B) Whoever-- (b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.Revn.

No.548 of 2006 (O&M) -4- description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [ one year].but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [ one year].“ Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the couRs.of arguments, does not challenge the conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1996 and a period of 17 years have already gone by.

Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spinning over a period of time.

The petitioner is a fiRs.time offender and is the sole bread earner of his family.

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25 of the Act is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of Arora the Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.Revn.

No.548 of 2006 (O&M) -5- petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

With the above modification/direction, the present petition stands disposed of.

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE September 11, 2013 G.Arora Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document