IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.148 of 2005 Date of Decision 12.10.2010 Harpal ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Harish Nain, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 13.12.2004, passed by Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 31.01.2002, passed by the trial Court, slapping him the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act 1959. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 25.06.1996, he was found in possession of a country made loaded pistol .315 bore in the left pocket of his pent and four live cartridges .315 bore in the front pocket of his shirt without any permit or licence. Consequently, on trial, he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it Criminal Revision No.148 of 2005 -2- transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996 and the sword of sentence remained hanging over his head for the last fourteen years. As per custody certificate, produced by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already undergone ten months and two days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record to enable this Court to dub him as habitual offender, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things to take a lenient view in the matter. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence,which is reduced to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, for compliance. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim the remuneration from the competent authority as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 12.10.2010 mamta-II