9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lightly without noticing the havoc they can create to the ordinary peace loving citizens of this country and to the national security and the integrity and the unity of this nation. We may indicate, the case in hand shows, how casually and lightly, these types of cases are being dealt with by the courts. 3. ASI S.S. Gaur and P.P. Mrigwas while on patrol duty apprehended that the accused on 13.09.2005 at 8.30 pm while they were coming from Bakaniya to Mrigwas Road, Guna, M.P. The accused was found to be in possession of country made barrel gun with two round bullets and 50 grams of explosives, without any licence. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Arms Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 confirmed the conviction and the sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The accused then filed Criminal Revision No.472 of 2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. The High Court confirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial court but so far as the sentence is concerned, the High Court passed the following order on 15.01.2009: "so 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 the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of jail sentence. We are sorry to note that the High Court has not taken pains to examine what was the period he had served by way of substantive sentence. The accused was in custody only for seven days i.e. from 14.9.05 to 20.9.05. We fail to see how the High Court has reached a finding that the accused had served the substantive period of jail sentence. 9. We are of the view, that the High Court and the courts below have committed a serious error in not awarding the minimum mandatory sentence prescribed under the Statute. Chapter V of the Arms Act deals with the offences and penalties. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for which minimum mandatory sentence was not less than three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of proof to the contrary be presumed to be carrying it with the intention of using it when an opportunity arise which would be detrimental to the people at large. Possibly, taking into consideration all those aspects, including the national interest and safety of the fellow citizens, the Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a minimum mandatory sentence. Once the accused was found guilty for the offence committed under - Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, he has necessarily to undergo the minimum mandatory sentence, prescribed under the Statute. 11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has overlooked this vital fact and awarded only one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The High Court has mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
