KALOO KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of the judgment passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar District-Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 159/97 dt. 25-6-98, maintaining the order of conviction passed against the petitioner by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ashoknagar District-Guna under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and enhancing the sentence of imprisonment from 8 months R. I. to one year R. I.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, lying in a narrow compass, leading to the filing of this petition, are thus; On 5-1-90 the petitioner was arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and during the search being made he was found in possession of a country made gun in two pieces for which he had no licence. The said gun, found to be in working order, was seized by the police and a case for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the petitioner, the same day. The investigation was done and after obtaining the permission from the District Magistrate, Guna the charge sheet was filed by the police against the petitioner in the Court of the concerning Magistrate. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ashok Nagar, Guna framed charges for the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner and conducted the trial of the Criminal Case No. 201/90. The prosecution witnesses were examined in the case and after careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was proved against the petitioner. Therefore, he convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months, coupled with a fine of Rs. 100/-. However, the petitioner was acquitted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, District-Guna dismissed the appeal as aforesaid and enhanced the sentence of imprisonment from 8 months to one year R. I., besides maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 100/-. Now, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging the appellate Court's judgment.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel on both the sides at length and have perused the record of the case. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since, admittedly, the State had not filed any appeal in the High Court under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the ground of its inadequacy, it had become final, and the learned appellate Court had no jurisdiction to enhance the sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner from 8 months R. I. to one year R.I. Besides, the learned counsel has also submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner now deserves to be sentenced for the period of imprisonment, of approximately six months, he has already undergone. On the other hand the argument of the learned panel lawyer appearing for the State is that since the minimum sentence to be passed for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act is one year, hence it could not be said that the order of the appellate Court enhancing the sentence passed against the petitioner was without jurisdiction.