Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gagan Singh And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28525) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28525]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1318/2008
1. Gagan Singh S/o Hernek Singh R/o Ward No.25,
Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.
2. Babu Singh S/o Harnam Singh R/o Ward No.25,
Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kulwant Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/07/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment dated 19.11.2008 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.210/2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
No.3, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate
court') by which the appellate court while dismissing the
petitioner's appeal, upheld the judgment dated 02.12.2004 passed
in Cr. Case No.199/2001 (17/01) by learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate (First Class), Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as
'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the
present petitioners as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 5/25 (1-A) of 3 years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month's S.I.
Arms Act
Section 3/25 (1-B)(A) 1 year's R.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
of Arms Act
[2025:RJ-JD:28525] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1318/2008]
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.2000, S.I. of Police
Station Hanumangarh Town conducted search at a house near
Warehouse, Hanumangarh Town on the basis of a secret
information. Upon reaching at the site, Police found the present
petitioners manufacturing weapons & pistols without any licence
or permit. The Police seized the material used for making weapons
& pistols and arrested the petitioners and thereafter registered an
FIR against them and commenced investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Sections 3/25 (1-B)(A) and 5/25 (1-A) of the
Arms Act against the petitioners who pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 12 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 02.12.2004 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.11.2008.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioners.
[2025:RJ-JD:28525] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1318/2008]
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 2000 and out of total
sentence of three years R.I., the accused petitioners have served
a considerable period of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that
the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioners.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2000 and
the petitioners have so far undergone a considerable period in
custody out of three years of total sentence, so also suffered the
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioners have remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections
3/25 (1-B)(A) and 5/25 (1-A) of the Arms Act and affirmed by the
appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the
petitioners.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Sections
3/25 (1-B)(A) and 5/25 (1-A) of the Arms Act, the sentence
[2025:RJ-JD:28525] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1318/2008]
awarded to them for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to
the period already undergone. Upon perusal of the record, it is
revealed that accused-petitioner Gagan Singh has deposited
Rs.750/- out of the total fine amount imposed upon him. The fine
amount if not already deposited by the accused-petitioners is
hereby waived. The petitioners are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if
any, shall stand disposed of.
12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
29-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
