Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41954
1 CRA-179-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 179 of 2010
SANJAY GARG
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Baghel - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Lokesh Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments are
heard finally.
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 27.01.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.293/2009
(State of MP Vs. Sanjay Garg ) by the II nd Additional Session Judge, Satna
(MP) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section
25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. It would be apt
to mention here that appellant-accused vide above judgment, was acquitted
of the charge under Section 307 in alternate 307/34 of IPC and as also
Section 27(2) of the Arms Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41954
2 CRA-179-2010
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report
lodged, FIR bearing Crime No.465/2007 was registered against the
appellant/accused at Police Station Kotwali, District Satna for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the
Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court. Charges under Sections 307 in alternate 307/34
of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a), 27(2) of the Arms Act were framed against
the present appellant. Accused/appellant has refuted the charges and claimed
to be tried. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court found the
appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)
(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned preceding paragraph
No.1. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant has
preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under
Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act by the Trial Court, but has prayed for
reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in
the year 2007 i.e. almost 18 years ago. It is submitted that in the course of
trial, appellant was on bail. He has not misused the liberty granted by
way of bail during trial. It is further submitted that appellant has already
served out approximately seven months & 23 days incarceration during trial
[from 02.10.2007 to 19.11.2007 and from 23.07.2009 to 27.01.2010].
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41954
3 CRA-179-2010
Therefore, it is prayed that appellant's jail sentence may be reduced/modified
to the extent of period already undergone by him as no fruitful purpose
would get served by sending him behind the bars again.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded
by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence
produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant
guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
impugned judgment and record of Trial Court.
7. On appreciation of the evidence on record, I find no infirmity and
no illegality in findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. Therefore,
findings of appellant's conviction for the alleged offence under Section
under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act are upheld.
8. As far prayer for reduction in jail sentence is concerned, it cannot
be over looked that appellant is facing the agony for the last approximately
18 years. Therefore, having taken into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the custodial period already undergone by the
appellant in jail and also the fact that the incident had taken place in the year
2007 i.e. almost approximately 18 years ago, I am of the view that ends of
justice would meet if jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the
period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount. Thus, as far
the jail sentence of the appellant is concerned, it is modified and reduced to
the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount
from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/ -.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41954
4 CRA-179-2010
9. Appellant is directed to deposit the fine amount as quantified by
this Court before the Trial Court within a period of thirty days from today.
Fine amount, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted. However, it is
clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is not deposited
within aforesaid period, appellant would surrender himself to serve out the
entire jail sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court with default
stipulations.
10. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged.
11. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the
property is affirmed.
12. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid
compliance.
13. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the
sentence.
14. A copy of this order along with record of the Trial Court be sent
immediately to the Court concerned for information and necessary action.
15. Certified copy as per rules.
(BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
