The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the hardships faced by the petitioner.

ORDER :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.15/2020 (CIS No.68/2020), dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 03.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.205/2017 (CIS No.2266/2017), whereby, he was convicted for the offences under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of which, he was further ordered to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Asharam, S.I., Police Station Chiksana submitted a report at the Police Station Chiksana. On the aforesaid report, an FIR No.233/2017 was registered and after usual investigation, challan under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was filed against the present petitioner.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for the offences under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 03.02.2020. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 20.10.2023 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2017. The offence involved is carrying arms. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial for 7 years. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is 3 years' simple imprisonment. He has already remained in custody for a period of more than 7 months and 7 days. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentences awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for significant time.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 2017 and involves the offences of carrying arms. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 7 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. The sentence awarded by the court below is 3 years' simple imprisonment. The petitioner has remained incarcerated for more than 7 months and 7 days till d