Patna High Court
Md. Sikander vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.90 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2016 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Md. Sikander, Son of Md. Hadim @ Md. Hadish Resident of village-
Gokhlapur, Ward No. 1, Police Station-Narpatganj, District-Araria
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun, Advocate
Md. Anwar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-03-2025
The present Revision Petition has been preferred
against the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2018 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in Criminal Appeal
No. 16 of 2017 whereby learned Sessions Court has partly
upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Supaul
whereby the petitioner herein was found guilty under Section
394 IPC and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
under Section 394 IPC and R.I. for two years under Section
25(1-b)a of the Arms Act and R.I. for one year under Section 26
of the Arms Act and R.I. for three years, under Section 27 of the
Arms Act and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.90 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently and in case of default to pay the
fine, to undergo additional S.I. for six months.
2. However, by the impugned judgment of the
Appellate Court, learned Appellate Court had acquitted the
petitioner under Section 27 of the Arms Act but upheld his
conviction and sentence under Section 394 IPC, 25(1-b)a and
Section 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced thereunder.
3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has already undergone about three years judicial
custody, because he was in custody since 28.02.2016 in the
present case. He further submits that as per the FIR and the
evidence on record, the best case of the prosecution is that his
attempt to commit robbery with arms has failed because he was
apprehended by the villagers and the informant on the spot. As
such offence under Section 394 was not completed. At most, he
has committed attempt to commit robbery. Even Section 26 of
the Arms Act does not apply because he was holding the illegal
arms in public view. He has not concealed the same, because as
per allegation he was using it. In regard to section 25(1-b)a of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.90 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
the Arms Act, it is submitted that the search and seizure has not
been done as per the procedure prescribed in the Criminal
Procedure Code.
5. Finally he also submits that in view of serving
almost the whole sentence except the fine, lenient view may be
taken by this Court to sentence the petitioner to imprisonment
for the period already undergone in custody and the fine part of
the sentence may be set aside.
6. Learned APP for the State, however, submits that
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and the present
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. However, I find that the petitioner has
committed, at most, the attempt to commit robbery. Moreover,
even search and seizure has not been done strictly as per law.
Section 26 of the Arms Act is not applicable in view of the fact
that arms was in possession of the petitioner in public view.
8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the
Appellate Court is upheld but sentencing part is modified to the
extent that the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the
period undergone by him in custody and the fine imposed upon
him is set aside.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.90 of 2019 dt.03-03-2025
9. The present petition is part allowed, accordingly.
10. L.C.R. be sent to the Court below without any
delay.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.03.2025
Transmission Date 04.03.2025
