Swaranjit Singh Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case dealt with the scope in reduction of sentence under section 25(1b)(a) of the arms act, 1959, on conviction on carrying fire arms and ammunition - the appeal was made against the sentence and the appellant had already undergone the ordeal of trial for ten years - it was observed the he was not a previous convict and was on bail since last ten years - hence it was ruled that there was no purpose in serving the accused to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence - it was ruled that the sentence was to be reduced to that already undergone and the appeal was disposed of - r.s. sodhi, j.1. this criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1992 of the learned additional sessions judge in sessions case no. 127/1990 whereby the learned additional sessions judge held the appellant guilty under section 25, arms act and further by his order dated 17.10.1992 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo r.i. for two years with a fine of rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo r.i. for six months.2. learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. he submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to 20.7.1991 and the appellant has already undergone a substantial portion of incarceration. he has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 10 years. he submits that the accused has been on bail since 5.11.1992 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this court. he submits that the appellant is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. learned counsel for the state has no objection if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.3. having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, i am of the opinion that the order of conviction cannot be faulted with but sentence can be reduced. in this view of the matter, while upholding the order of conviction, i reduce the sentence to that already undergone.crl. a. 202/1992 is disposed of.4. the appellants is on bail. his bail bond and sureties shall stand discharged.the non-bailable warrants issued to secure the presence of the appellant are recalled.5. appeal disposed of.