TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes law and order situation, directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts which needs to be curbed. We are sorry to note the law enforcing agencies and to certain extent the courts in the country always treat the crimes 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 posses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essions Judge, Chachoda on the ground that the conviction of the accused under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act was illegal and that the accused had not committed any offence. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, vide his order dated 9.7.2008 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng found the accused guilty under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Error is apparent on the face of the High Court s order. The High Court has - confined the sentence to the period the accused was in custody stating that he had already served substantive 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unition, especially in a situation where we are facing with menace of terrorism and other anti national activities. A person who is found to be in possession of country made barrel gun with two round bullets and 50 grams explosive without licence, must in the absence 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 necessaril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
