The court may exercise judicial discretion to reduce a substantive sentence to the period already undergone when the conviction is not challenged on merits and the offender has suffered prolonged litigation over a significant period.

Order

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment dated 06.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.85/2007 (141/2005), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.153/2005 was affirmed.

1.1. By the said judgment, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days’ simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.04.2005, Datar Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector posted at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur, received information that near Barkat Sahab Ki Haveli, one person was standing armed with a spring-actuated knife and was threatening passers-by with dire consequences. Acting upon the said information, the police party immediately proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching there, one person was found holding a sharp-edged knife and allegedly creating fear amongst the public on the thoroughfare. On being intercepted and questioned, he disclosed his name as Chand Mohammad.

2.1. It was further alleged that the knife was taken into possession by the police after due caution. As per the seizure proceedings, the blade measured 14.05 cm, the handle measured 17 cm and the total length of the knife was 31.05 cm. When asked to produce any licence or permit authorising possession of the said weapon, the accused allegedly failed to do so. Since the accused was carrying the prohibited weapon in a public place within municipal limits without authority, a case under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was registered and, after investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against him.

2.2. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The accusation was read over and explained to him, to which he denied guilt and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses and exhibited various documents including seizure memo, arrest memo, site plan, description memo of the knife, seal memo and the formal First Information Report. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and chose not to lead any defence evidence.

2.3. Upon appreciation of the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noticed above. The appeal preferred thereagainst also came to be dismissed by the learned appellate Court, which concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that he does not press the challenge to the finding of conviction on merits. It has been urged that the petitioner confines the present revision only to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 2005 and more than two decades have elapsed since the date of incident. It is further submitted that the petitioner had remained in police/judicial custody for about twenty-two days during the course of proceedings. It is, therefore, prayed that while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may suitably be reduced to the period already undergone.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for reduction of sentence; however, he was not in a position to dispute that the incident is of the year 2005 and that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for approximately twenty-two days.

5. I have given my thought