MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern both Criminal Revisions Nos. 1869 of 1967 and 2137 of 1967 which are before me as connected revisions. After hearing Mr. D.P. Mittal, who has appeared as counsel for the Applicants in both the revisions, I am of the opinion that these revisions must fail.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on the evening of 23 -10 -1966, three persons, viz, Mahabir Singh (Applicant in Criminal Revision No. 1869 of 1967), Ram Charan (Applicant in Criminal Revision No. 2137 of 1967) and one Kaltan were arrested together and on a search of their persons having been made whereas the Applicants Mahabir Singh and Ram Charan were each found in possession of a pistol and two live cartridges, Kalian was found in possession of three live cartridges only. None of the three was able to produce a license for possessing any of the above articles with the result that, after the necessary sanction, each of the above three persons were tried separately for an offence under the Indian Arms Act. The trial court convicted all the three persons whereafter three appeals were riled. All these appeals were decided by the same Sessions Judge. By order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 4 -10 - -1967, Mahabir Singh's appeal was dismissed. By order of the same Sessions Judge dated 5 -10 -1967, Ram Charan's appeal was also dismissed, but by order of the same Sessions Judge passed that very day, i.e., 5 -10 -1967, Kalian's appeal was allowed. Kalian was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. Mahabir Singh and Ram Charan thereafter filed the two revisions which are before me. During the pendency of these revisions an application was filed in Ram Charan's revision (Criminal Revision No. 2137 of 1967) praying for admission of the judgment of the Sessions Judge in Kalian's appeal. A certified copy of the said judgment was filed along with the application and Learned Counsel for the Applicants has based his contention mainly on the judgment of the appellate court whereby Kalian was acquitted. Learned Counsel has urged that keeping in view the fact of Kalian's acquittal, the proper course to adopt is to allow these revisions also and acquit the Applicants. Reliance has been pleaded on the decision of Tripathi, J. in the case of Dewan Singh v. State, 1965 AWR 113. After perusing the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the grounds given by him for acquitting Kalian I am unable to accept Learned Counsel's contention.

(3.) AS regards the merits of the conviction recorded against the Applicants in these two revisions nothing has been pointed out which might justify interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional powers. The sentence awarded to the Applicants also does not, in any manner, appear to be severe. The result is that these revisions must fail.