Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naveen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 29 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 294 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NAVEEN S/O SHRI KAILASH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 33
YE A R S , CHAMUNDA GALI KILE ANDAR VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. AYUSI VYAS - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION KOTWALI
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. DINESH SAVITA - PANEL LAWYER)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h is criminal revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated
10.1.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.105/2023 by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) whereby the judgment dated 22.9.2023 passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha (M.P.) in Criminal Case No. 349/2021 was
affirmed, whereby the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced under
Section 25 (1-B)(b) of Arms Act to undergo simple imprisonment of one year
with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.
T h e prosecution case in brief is that on 03.3.2021, police got an
information from the informant that one person is roaming in front of Patel
Garden having sharp iron knife. Thereafter, police party reached on the spot.
After noticing the police, aforesaid person tried to escape however, he was
caught by the police and upon inquiry, he introduced himself as Naveen S/o
Kailash Yadav (present petitioner). When police searched the body of the
petitioner, one sharp iron knife was recovered from the possession of the
petitioner for which he was not having any valid license. Thereafter, Crime
No.92/2021 was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was filed.
Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner/accused
under Section 25 (1-B)(b) of Arms Act. The learned trial Court after hearing
learned counsel for the rival parties and after appreciating the evidence available
on record vide judgment dated 22.9.2023 convicted and sentenced the
petitioner as mentioned in the first para of this order. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Vidisha (M.P.) wherein, the learned appellate Court after hearing learned
counsel for the rival parties vide impugned judgment dated 10.1.2024 affirmed
the judgment dated 22.9.2023 passed by the trial Court, against which, the
present revision is filed.
Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the petitioner has
falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions
and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Further
argument is that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year,
2021 to till date and is suffering physically and mentally for the same and has
already suffered more than four months of incarceration out of total jail
sentence of one year. On these grounds, it is prayed that revision filed by the
petitioner deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be
set aside.
In alternative, leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has already served total incarceration of more than four months out of total
awarded maximum sentence of one year. It is submitted that looking to the
nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part
of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and
the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.
Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation
o f evidence, learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the
petitioner, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the revision filed
by the petitioner be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has
been committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioner hence,
the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below requires no
interference and the same is hereby maintained.
S o far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the
fact that petitioner has already served substantive period of jail sentence, the
purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is
reduced to the period already undergone subject to payment of additional fine
amount as Rs.2000/- in addition to the fine already imposed by the trial Court.
I n the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The findings of
conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail
sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone
subject to depositing fine amount as imposed by the Courts below as well as
additional fine amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) within a
period of two months from today, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer jail
sentence awarded by the learned Courts below. The petitioner is in jail. He be
released and set free, if not required in any other case.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
With the aforesaid modification, the instant criminal revision stands
disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
