Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramzan Pindara vs The State Of M. P. on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20689
1 CRR-1441-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1441 of 2025
RAMZAN PINDARA
Versus
THE STATE OF M. P.
Appearance:
Dr. Khuzema Kapadia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri SS Thakur - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on :- 28.07.2025.
Posted on:- 05.08.2025.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438 r/w Section 440 of the
BNSS, 2023 is preferred challenging the legality of conviction under Section
25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentence of 02 years R.I with fine of
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations of 01 month R.I vide judgment dated
06.08.2024 by JMFC, Kannod, District Dewas in RCT No.468/2023 and
affirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, District Dewas
vide order dated 06.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.0/2025.
2. Facts in brief are that prosecution case before the trial Court was
that petitioner/accused was apprehended at 1:10 pm of 08.10.2023 in village
Takli Kheda, Kannod, District Dewas behind stone crusher of Bindal Seth
with a bore gun and a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle. He did not possess
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20689
2 CRR-1441-2025
the license regarding the arms. A crime No.639 was registered at P.S
Kannod, District Dewas. Completing the investigation a final report was
submitted to the Court of JMFC Kannod.
3. Charges under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 were
denied by the petitioner/accused and claimed for trial.
4. To bring home the guilt the prosecution examined Head Constable
No.278 Sunil Sharma as (PW-1), Independent witness Rohit (PW-2), Arms
Clerk in the Court of Collector, District Dewas Amit Choudhary (PW-3),
Vijay (PW-4), Sub-Inspector Rahul Rawat (PW-5), Constable No.906
Rajendra (PW-6), Vishal Constable No.877 (PW-7).
5. In cross-examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973
petitioner either denied or expressed ignorance to facts and circumstance put
before him and his defense is of false implications. Appreciating the
evidence trial Court sentenced and convicted the petitioner as mentioned in
para 01 of the judgment and was unsuccessful in the appeal.
6. This criminal revision is preferred on the ground that prosecution
has utterly failed to adduce unimpeachable evidence to prove the culpability
of the petitioner. No conviction can be recorded on the prosecution evidence.
It is also argued that he has undergone about 20 months of imprisonment and
the same may be modified to period already undergone.
Heard.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has argued that findings
recorded by trial Court are not perverse. It require no interference looking to
the criminal antecedent of 27 cases no case for leniency in sentence is made
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20689
3 CRR-1441-2025
out.
Perused the record.
9. Testimony of Sub-Inspector Rahul Rawat (PW-5) discloses that the
gun Article-A and two cartridge marked as Article-B were found in
possession of the petitioner at 1:10 pm of 08.10.2023 in village Taklikheda,
District Kannod behind stone crusher of Bindal Seth and seizure memo
Ex.P/3 was prepared.
10. The seizure has been supported by Independent witness Vijay
(PW-4) and Rohit (PW-2). No material has been adduced from the cross-
examination of the witness that why he has the motive to falsely implicate
the present petitioner. The testimony of Head Constable Sunil Sharma (PW-
2) has proved report Ex.P/1 that Article-A fire arm and Article-B are
cartridges. Amit Choudhary (PW-3) has proved the sanction for prosecution
granted by the District Magistrate, Dewas under Section 39 of the Arms Act,
1959.
11. There is no perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by
the trial Court hence, the findings of conviction under Section 25(1-B)(a) of
the Arms Act, 1959 does not require interference and are thereby affirmed.
12. Minimum sentence for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the
Arms Act, 1959 is two years which may extend to 05 years and fine and
minimum sentence has been awarded to the petitioner.
13. Considering the significant crime antecedent of the petitioner, no
case for exercising the jurisdiction to impose sentence of imprisonment for a
term of less than 02 years is made out. Accordingly, this criminal revision is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20689
4 CRR-1441-2025
dismissed.
14. Let copy of the order be forwarded to the petitioner. Record be
remitted back.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
akanksha
