231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRR-883-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 02.02.2026 Sadanand ....Petitioner VERSUS State of U.T.Chandigarh ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Kripal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Sharmila Sharma, APP for U.T.Chandigarh.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the judgment dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act in FIR No.05, dated 04.01.2015, registered at Police Station Sector -11, Chandigarh

2. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecution alleged that on 04.01.2015, the police party headed by the Investigating Officer was present near Dhanas Bridge in connection with patrolling duty and had laid a naka. At about 6:40 PM, the accused was seen coming from the side of Dhanas village and on noticing the police party, he became perplexed and started moving backwards. On suspicion, he was apprehended and upon search, one country-made pistol was recovered from his possession. The accused could not produce any licence or permit for possessing the said weapon. Necessary proceedings were conducted at the spot and on the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered against the accused. Investigation was carried out in accordance with law.

3. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned trial Court. Copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused as per law. Finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses.

5. From the record, it is evident that the prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to him. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led by the accused.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of ₹500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court. However, the learned Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 27.01.2023, dismissed the appeal, finding no merit therein, and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

9. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the State.

10. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to concede that he does not wish to press the revision on the question of conviction. Learned counsel confined his arguments only to the quantum of sentence and prayed for reduction of sentence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and the lapse of time since the occurrence.

12. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Without disturbing the findings of convictio