MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 374 Criminal Penal Code is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1985 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg in Sessions Case No. 53/1984 whereby appellant Munshi has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of . Rs. 200.00, in default of payment of which to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that an FIR No. 179/1984 came to be registered at PS. Deeg on 23.7.1984 against the appellant and three others for the offences under Sec. 399/402 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act by Virendra Singh, the then SHO PS Deeg, with the allegations that while he was on patrolling duty, he received a secret information to the effect that 7-8 persons were making preparation for committing dacoity at a nearby place. After obtaining additional police force, he reached the place and nabbed four persons namely; Munshi, Bhikam, Ibrahim and Akhtar and others fled away from there. They were put on trial and were charged for the offences under Sec. 399/402 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they were making preparation for committing dacoity at 8.00 p.m. on 23.7.1984 in a dilapidated thatched hut situated near the well in Nagla Ramjilal Faujdar. Appellant Munshi and co-accused Akhtar were further charged for the offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act on the allegation that they were having a 12 bore country made gun and three live cartridges and two live cartridges respectively without valid license. The trial Court after due trial acquitted all the accused persons of the charges under section 399/402 Indian Penal Code but convicted the, appellant and co-accused Akhtar for the offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Co-accused Akhtar was let-off on the sentence already undergone and a fine of Rs. -100.00 in default of payment of which to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. The appellant was, however, sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, he preferred this appeal before this Court challenging his conviction as well as the quantum of sentence.