Ashok Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16856 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                                              ON THE 11 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1154 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ASHOK KUMAR YADAV S/O VIRENDRA PRASAD
                           YADAV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           PRIVATE JOB R/O TELAI CHUVA, P.S.BARAUNDHA,
                           DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI R.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                           STATION BARAUNDHA DISTRICT-SATNA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

                                 Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04/03/2023 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Cr.A. No. 31/2023, whereby appeal preferred by applicant against judgment dated 10/01/2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chitrakoot District Satna in Criminal Case No. 10056/2017 got dismissed by affirming the said judgment, wherein applicant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 10/13/2023 10:09:38 AM

and to pay fine of Rs.200/- with usual default stipulation.

02. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged by complainant Crime No. 59/2017 has been registered against the appellant at Police Station Barondha, District Satna for commission of Offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court.

03. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence lead by parties, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the impugned

judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, which also got dismissed vide impugned judgment by affirming the judgment of trial Court. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred present revision petition before this Court.

04. Learned counsel for the applicant has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as is the conviction of the appellant is concerned. In other words, the learned counsel for the applicant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment (one year R.I) alone. It is submitted that the applicant is a youth of aged about 29 years and is the only earning person in his family, he is the first offender and counsel assures that he will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appliant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the applicant was facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than 6 years and has served more than 9 months jail sentence therefore, he prayed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 10/13/2023 10:09:38 AM

that his jail sentence be reduced suitably.

05. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have rightly found guilty the petitioner for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the applicant, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

07. Though the applicant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the Courts below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Courts below on merits. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that FIR was registered promptly and the complainant Ashok Kumar (AW 1) has fully supported the prosecution story, which is also corroborated with the statements of Ramkishore (AW 2), Yogendra Singh Jayshur (AW 3), Dayashankar Dwivedi (AW 4) and Umashankar Mishra (AW 5) therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under Section 25(-B) of Arms Act recorded by the trial Court and upheld by appellate

court is hereby affirmed.

08. Now the question arises as to whether the applicant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

09. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 10/13/2023 10:09:38 AM

opinion that looking to the fact that the appellant is a youth of aged about 29 years and he has already suffered more than 9 months custodial sentence and the counsel assures that in future the appellant will not involve in any such offence, therefore, this Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant deserves to be and is hereby reduced to the period of already undergone by him, subject to depositing fine amount imposed by learned trial by the appellant within 30 days from today. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant shall suffer 1 month R.I.

10. The applicant is in jail, therefore, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

11. With the aforesaid modification, present criminal revision stands partly allowed and disposed of.

Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the courts' below for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per Rules.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE skt

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 10/13/2023 10:09:38 AM