SANTOSHKUMAR SHRIJAYLAL ROY Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy is challenging the judgment and order dated 28 th January 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.528 of 2012, thereby convicting the appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy of offences punishable under Sections 75 , 393 read with 34, 397 and 398 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act . The learned trial court, upon conviction of the appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy for the offence punishable under Section 393 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code , has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.2,000/-, and default sentence for 3 months. Similarly, by convicting appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy for the offence punishable under Section 397 and 398 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code , he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Appellant/ accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy is separately convicted for the offence under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and on this count, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that, without assigning any reason, despite conviction of appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy for offences punishable under Sections 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act , the learned trial court has failed to impose sentence on this count.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is thus :

(3.) I have heard Shri Apte, the learned advocate appointed to represent appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy, at the cost of the State. By drawing my attention to Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, Shri Apte, the learned advocate argued that, the learned trial court ought not to have sentenced appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy for the offence punishable under Section 393 as well as for offences punishable under Sections 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code. At the most, the learned trial court, if found appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy guilty, should have convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate further argued that no separate sentence should have been imposed by the learned trial court on appellant/accused no.1 Santoshkumar Roy for the offence under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code, after sentencing him for offences punishable under Sections 393 , 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of possession of firearm in absence of the sanction to prosecute him for the said offence.