RAMA MISTRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner has preferred this criminal revision application against the impugned judgment dated 5 -1 -93, passed by Shri Jiwan Tigga, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, Biharsharif, in Cr. Appeal No. 22/26 of 1987/88, Rama Mistri v. State of Bihar, whereby the judgment of the trial Court has been affirmed in lull. The learned SDJM, Hilsa, by his judgment dated 9 -4 -87, passed in GR Case No. 1128/ 79 (Trial No. 314 of 1987) State through Yogeshwar Singh, SI, Hilsa Police Station v. Rama Mistry, has convicted the petitioner herein under Sections 25 -A and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"), and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 -A, but did not inflict any separate sentence under Section 26 of the Act.

(2.) During course of raid by the Sub -Inspector of the Hilsa Police Station, from the residential premises of the petitioner on 28 -12 -79, at about 5.45 p.m., a number of incriminating materials meant to manufacture, fire -arms were recovered. The petitioner was arrested on the spot and was ultimately released by learned Sessions Judge on 25 -2 -80. The cognizance was taken on 12 -7 -80 under Sections 25 -A, and 26 of the Act. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under -Sections 25 -A and 26 of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was taken into custody on 9 -4 -87 itself. His appeal was admitted on 6 -5 -87, and he was directed to be released on bail, and was actually released from jail on 10 -5 -87. He then preferred appeal which was dismissed on 5 -1 -93, and conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court was affirmed in full. Pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, he was arrested on 14 -2 -94. In the present revision application, by order dated 25 -3 -94, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. He thus remained in jail for a total period of four and -a -half months. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner was engaged in manufacture of fire -arms without requisite licence to manufacture those under Section 5 of the Act.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, Counsel for the petitioner did not assail the validity of the conviction recorded by the Court of appeal below. He, however, submitted that the judgment of both the Courts below are vitiated on the question of sentence for non -consideration of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr. P.C., 1973. He has relied on the following three reported judgments: