Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aashiq Khan vs The State Of M.P. on 15 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRR-124-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRR-124-2021
(AASHIQ KHAN Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-03-2021
Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Revision seems to be arguable hence it is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.821/2021, which is first application under
Section 397(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the
custodial sentence passed against the applicant- Aashiq Khan.
This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 14/1/2021
passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge Nasrullaganj, Distt. Sehore (M.P.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 291/2019 whereby learned ASJ affirmed the judgement
of conviction dated 12/10/2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Nasrullaganj, District-Sehore in R.C.T.No.194/2014 and altered the
conviction of the applicant from Section 24 (A), 25 (1B)(b) and 27 to Section
25 (1B)(a) of Arms Act whereby learned JMFC found applicant guilty and
convicted and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-
under Section 24 (A), 25 (1B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court without
recording statement of independent witness of the seizure memo found
applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(b) and 27 of
the Arms Act. From the order sheet dated 3/7/2019, it is apparent that both of
the witnesses namely Sandeep and Raghav were not found on their given
address, so learned trial Court declared them absconder which clearly shows
that the Investigating Officer prepared a false seizure memo against the
applicant. Even learned trial Court framed charge against the applicant for the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
offence punishable under Sections 25 (1B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act and
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2021.03.15 18:12:41 IST
2 CRR-124-2021
also found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 25 (1B)(b) and 27
of the Arms Act. While there is no evidence on record to show that the
applicant used arms, so no offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is
made out against the applicant from the prosecution evidence. He further
submitted that learned trial Court found guilty for the offence punishable
under Sections 25 (1B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act while learned appellate
Court maintained the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable
under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act while the charge under Section
25(1B)(a) of Arms Act was not framed by the trial court against the applicant
and without framing charge learned appellate court found the applicant guilty
under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act. Applicant is in custody since
14/1/2021. Hence, prayed for suspension of sentence and release of the
applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention
of learned counsel of the applicant, the application is allowed. It is, therefore,
directed that execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the applicant
shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision and he be
released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 23/8/2021 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf
by the Registry during the pendency of this revision.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
m/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2021.03.15 18:12:41 IST
