Karnataka High Court

Sri Sabu vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2023

Bench: V Srishananda

                                           -1-
                                                   CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 367 OF 2019
              BETWEEN:


              SRI SABU
              AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
              S/O C.S.JOSEPH
              BHAGIKODLU,
              JADKAL VILLAGE
              KUNDAPURA TALUK- 576 201.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

              AND:

              THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
              KOLLUR POLICE STATION
              REPRESENTED BY
              STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
Digitally
signed by R   BANGALORE -560001.
MANJUNATHA
Location:                                                    ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
              (BY SRI VINAYAKA.V.S, ADVOCATE)

                    THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
              ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
              07.03.2012 MADE IN C.C.NO.727/2007 BY THE COURT OF II
              ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KUNDAPURA AND THE
              JUDGMENT     AND    ORDER     DATED   22.02.2019   MADE    IN
              CRL.A.NO.27/2013 BY THE COURT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
              SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) AND ACQUIT
              HIM OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE
              COURTS BELOW.

                    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
              DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                         CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019




                             ORDER

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order

of conviction dated 7.3.2012 passed in CC No.727/2007 by the

learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura for the

offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms

Act, 1959.

2. Thereafter, the accused/Revision Petitioner herein

filed Criminal Appeal No. 27/2013 on the file of the learned

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Udupi sitting at Kundapura

which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 22.02.2019.

Being aggrieved by the same, the accused/Revision Petitioner is

before this Court in this Revision Petition.

3. The Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 29.9.2006 at about 1.00 p.m., the Forester, on receipt

of the credible information that accused is holding a fire arm

without licence and he is in the process of hunting wild animals.

4. Accordingly, the Forester, being the head of the raid

party, formed a raid team of himself, along with his staffs and

two independent panch witnesses of Jadkal Range and

CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019

proceeded to the place of information, which is being a house

bearing door No.3-44B situated at Bagikodlu of Jadkal Village

being the houses of the accused/Revision Petitioner and found

that the accused-petitioner was in possession of meat of the

wild animal and also found in possession of fire arm i.e.,

S.B.M.I. Nadakovi without licence and seized the fire arm which

is marked at MO-1. Admittedly, the fire arm was in a working

condition without licence.

5. After thorough investigation, the Investigation

Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused/Revision

Petitioner.

6. The presence of the accused person was secured

before the learned Magistrate and charges were framed.

7. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial

was held.

8. During trial, the head of the raid party and other

staff have supported the case of the prosecution and MO1 was

marked, which is the seized fire arm from the custody of the

accused.

CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019

9. Taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter

and admittedly, there being no licence to hold the fire arm by

the accused/Revision Petitioner, the learned Trial Judge came

to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving

the ingredients of Section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and

convicted the accused by sentencing the accused for one year

simple imprisonment and ordered to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, the

accused/Revision Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal before the

first Appellate Court, which on contest came to be dismissed as

aforesaid, whereby, the order passed by the learned Magistrate

was confirmed.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused/Revision

Petitioner is before this court.

12. Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the

Revision Petitioner, vehemently contended that the fire arm is

ignorantly used by the accused/Revision Petitioner in order to

protect himself from the attack by the wild animals and simple

incident has been blown out of proportion and there is no

material on record that accused/Revision Petitioner was using

CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019

the fire arm for the purpose of hunting or catching of wild

animals and therefore, sought for allowing the Revision

Petition.

13. Alternatively, he contended that since the accused

revision petitioner is first time offender and grown up citizens in

the society now, leniency may be shown and minimum

punishment can be imposed by increasing the fine amount.

14. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposes the revision grounds. In respect of the

alternate revision grounds, he has contended that two courts

have recorded a factual finding that the accused/revision

petitioner was found guilty of the offences alleged against him

especially holding a firm arm without licence would completes

the offence as is contemplated under the provisions of Section

3 & 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sought for dismissal of the

Revision Petition.

15. In respect of the alternate grounds, Sri Vinayaka

V.S. learned High Court Government Pleader contended that in

respect of such offences, if any leniency is shown, it would send

CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019

a wrong message to the society and sought for dismissal of the

in Revision Petition in toto.

16. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this

court perused the material on record meticulously.

17. Admittedly, the fire arm which was seized from

the custody of the accused/Revision Petitioner, marked as MO-

1, was in working condition, in view of the certificate given by

the Ballistic Expert Sri Prabhakar, which is marked as Ex.P7.

18. In respect of the case which would conclude that

the accused person was in possession of a fire arm, in a

working condition without a licence and therefore, all

ingredients would attract the offences punishable under

Sections 3 & 25 of the Indian Arms Act, stands established by

the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. Further, no explanation is forthcoming from the

accused while recording the statement under Section 313

Cr.PC, nor any written submission is furnished as is

contemplated under Section 313(5) Cr.PC. Therefore, it is

difficult to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the

CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019

accused/Revision Petitioner before this court for the first time

that the fire arm is used ignorantly by the Revision Petitioner.

20. It is also settled principles of law that ignorance of

law has no base and therefore, the contentions urged on behalf

of the Revision Petitioner cannot be countenanced in law and

therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Magistrate that the

accused revision petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged is

not suffering from any legal infirmity or patent factual defect

nor perversity. But, on the contrary, the same is based on

sound and logical reasons. Therefore, the conviction of the

accused/revision petitioner cannot be faulted with.

21. However, with regard to the alternate submission

made on behalf of the revision petitioner, that the

accused/revision petitioner are grown up respectable citizens in

the society needs to be considered.

22. Accordingly, taking note of the fact that the age of

the accused/petitioners being 51 years, this court is of the

considered opinion that directing him to undergo simple

imprisonment for one day till the raising of the court by

CRL.RP No. 367 of 2019

increasing the fine amount to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would

meet the ends of justice.

23. Accordingly, the sentence as ordered by the Trial

Court needs interference by this court. Hence, following:

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part subject to the following conditions:

(1) While maintaining the conviction of the accused/Revision Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 25 of the Indian Arms Act, the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Judge is modified by directing the accused/Revision Petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till raising of the court and ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of Rs.5,000/- as ordered by the Trial Court.