2014 Supreme(Raj) 2121
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
Kushal Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 426 of 1996.
Decided On : 11-12-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:M.K. Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent: L.R. Upadhayay, Public Prosecutor.
The Arms Act does not exclude the application of Section 360 CrPC and Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and a court may grant probation to a person convicted under the Arms Act in appropriate circumstances.
Headnote:
ARMS ACT - SECTION 25 - SECTION 360 CRPC - SECTION 6 PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act for possessing a 32 bore pistol without a license. He challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal, but the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not been previously convicted and that he had undergone mental agony and financial strain during the trial and appeal. The court also noted that the incident took place in 1992 and that the revision petition was being heard in 2014.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 360 CrPC and Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 360 CrPC and Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The court reasoned that the Arms Act does not exclude the application of these provisions and that the petitioner had not been previously convicted. The court also considered the fact that the incident took place in 1992 and that the petitioner had already undergone mental agony and financial strain during the trial and appeal.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition and directed that the petitioner be released on probation of good conduct instead of being sentenced to imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
1. - The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kushal Das S/o Kasu Ram, resident of Dhanoor Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 9.10.1996 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge NO.1, Sri Ganganagar camp at Sri Karanpur in Cr. Appeal No.63/92 whereby the learned trial court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 20.11.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No.458/86 whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence was passed for 3 years SI.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 24.8.1986 by the SHO Ramphal Sharma Police Station Kesrisinghpur in which it was alleged that he along-with patrolling party went for regular search and at about 7.30 p.m. near bus stand of 8V Near Keshrisinghpur when patrolling party reached there, they saw one person who was coming from opposite side and when he saw the police party he ran away from the place. Thus, a doubt was created, therefore, accused was stopped and upon search one 32 bore pistol was recovered from him for which there was no license found in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and after investigation challan was filed, but ultimately petitioner was convicted for holding 32 bore pistol in his possession without license, which is punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and the learned trial court passed the sentence against the petitioner for 3 years SI vide judgment dated 20.11.1992.
3. In appeal filed by the petitioner the appellate court maintained the conviction as well as punishment against which this revision petition has been filed.
4. At the threshold the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that incident took place in the year 1992 and near about 22 years have passed, therefore, the petitioner is not challenging the finding of conviction arrived at by both the courts below but prayed that he may be granted benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and benefit under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act and sentence awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed in appeal may kindly be quashed.
5. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that previously the petitioner was convicted and faced any trial, therefore, the petitioner may be granted benefit of aforesaid sections.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of this court reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208 Darshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan in which in identical situation the benefit of probation was granted.
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner is not entitled for any benefit because he has committed an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which is serious in nature.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have given my thoughtful consideration towards the rival submission. In my opinion, when offence was committed in the year 1992 then in the year 2014 it is not proper to send the petitioner behind the bars. In case of Darshan Singh (supra), the following adjudication was made by the coordinate bench of this court, which reads as under:-
"6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The Arms Act, 1959 does not exclude the application of provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C. as well as those of provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. In Jugta Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 Raj. Cr. Cases 01 , it has been held that unless any Act excludes the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, the mere fact that a minimum sentence has been prescribed for any offence, is not sufficient to refuse beneficiary probation. It was further observed that its application, however, depends on the facts of each
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
