The court can reduce sentences for offenses under the Arms Act when a prolonged trial has occurred and the accused have already served part of their sentence.

Order :

1. By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioners-accused have challenged the judgment dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in criminal appeal no. 94/2007 whereby the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.04.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- I No. 3, Bhilwara has been affirmed and the petitioners accused have been convicted for the offence under sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.

2. As per prosecution, the allegation against the present petitioners is that on 26.08.1991, the petitioners- accused and the co-accused Hafiz Mohammed were found in possession of articles used for the preparation/ construction of arms without any license to produce the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident in the present case occurred in the year 1991. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners possessed a license which was issued in the name of Rasool Khan and one Ajij Ahmed. Learned counsel submitted that though on the date of occurrence, Rasool Khan had died, yet Ajij Ahmed was very much alive and there is nothing on record to establish that the present petitioners were preparing the weapons of their own accord and were not directed to do so by Ajij Ahmed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the alternative submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 1991 and the petitioners have already served some part of the sentence awarded to them, therefore the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v State of Karnataka: 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan: 2014 CriLJ 2582 Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against the petitioners. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments/orders and therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the record of the case.

6. This Court finds that the allegation against the present petitioners is that they have been found guilty of preparing arms and ammunition without having any valid license in their possession. However, in the opinion of this Court, since the incident relates to the year 1991 and the petitioners have already suffered the agony and trauma of the protracted trial for about 33 years coupled with the fact that the petitioners have already spent some period in custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

7. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction, the petitioners’ sentence for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them.

8. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail-bonds stand discharged accordingly.

9. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

10. The record of the trial Court as well as Appellate Court be sent back forthwith.