Anish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6459 MP

                               - : 1 :-
                                                       CRR No.940/2022


     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT
                     INDORE
           BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                    ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2022

              CRIMINAL REVISION No. 940 of 2022

 Between:-
 ANISH S/O SHRI RAEES MEWATI , AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
 OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O NEAR SAI MANDIR ABHINANDAN
 NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....PETITIONER

 AND

 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
 THROUGH POLICE STATION CITY KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

       Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent/State.
       Heard on the question of admission.
       Admit.
       Since record of both the courts below has been received,
therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard
finally.
                            ORDER

The applicant/accused has filed this revision against the following :

Judgment dated 26.10.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Mandsaur in Regular Cr. Trial No. 232/2020 whereby he has been convicted u/s. 25(1-B)(a) of the arms Act and sentenced to undergo two years' RI and also to pay fine of

- : 2 :-

CRR No.940/2022

Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Judgment dated 28.2.2022 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Cr. Appeal No.73/2021 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and conviction and sentence of applicant has been affirmed.

As per prosecution story, Ritesh Damor, Sub Inspector, Police Station City Kotwali, Mandsaur on 26.2.2020 on routine patrolling reached M.P. Bus Stand and received an information that one of the accused in a murder case i.e. Anis who is resident of Abhinandan Nagar, Mandsaur has been seen near 500 Quarter Tigriya with a 12- bore country made pistol. He reached to the spot with two witnesses and found the present applicant. He was searched and from his possession one country made pistol and a live cartridge were recovered. He was arrested and criminal case was registered u/s. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against him. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against him. He denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

After evaluating the evidence came on record, learned JMFC has convicted and sentenced the applicant, as stated above. The appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Hence, the present revision before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merit but praying for reduction of the sentence from two years to the period already undergone.

On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the applicant is a known criminal and he has rightly been sentenced and

- : 3 :-

CRR No.940/2022

no leniency is liable to be shown. The revision is liable to be dismissed.

I have perused the record of courts below.

On perusal of the record, it is clear that looking to the testimony of Ritesh Damor (P.W.4), independent witness Digvijay Singh (P.W.3) and police witnesses viz. Rakesh Solanki (P.W.5) and Manoj Mahajan (P.W.6) the learned JMFC has convicted and sentenced the applicant. Lower appellate court after going through the record has also dismissed the appeal. After going through the record of courts below, I am of the considered opinion that the learned courts below have not committed any error of law while convicting and sentencing the applicant. Both the courts below after due appreciation of evidence came on record have convicted and sentenced the applicant. There is concurrent findings given by two courts below. The scope of interference in a revision is very limited. Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms provides as under :

"25(1-B) Whoever - (a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any fire-arm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 ........................... shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."

In view of the above, learned courts below have awarded the minimum sentence of two years to the applicant. Hence, no interference is called for and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2022.05.04 18:03:10 +05'30'