RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota dated 22-2-1983, confirming the sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. An F. I. R. was registered under Sections 367 and 392, IPC at the police station, Gumanpura Kota on 8-11-1977, on the basis of a report given by one Shri Laxman Das, wherein it was alleged that at about 3 p. m. three persons hired his scooter-rickshaw for going to the aerodrome circle, and after reaching the aerodrome circle they asked him to go further. On his refusal one of them forced him to go J. K. Factory and back and did not pay the money when he cried for help-near police station Gumanpura, three-four police constables came and appre-hended the accused persons. A challan was submitted after investigation in the court of Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, South, Kota City who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota framed charge under Section 347 and 393, IPC and remanded the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after holding the trial acquitted the accused petitioner of the charges under Section 347 and 393, IPC, but held the accused-petitioner guilty under Section 25 read with Section 4 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. On appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 6 months to 3 months, but increased the fine from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. It is against this order the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the judgement of the two courts below are perverse and there is no independent evidence to support the conviction of the accused-petitioner.