1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Mehrudeen Vs. The State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.483/2004. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 3rd September, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. V.K. Mishra for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.54/2004 (185/2004) confirming the judgment dated 20.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.454/2003 by which the petitioner has been convicted under section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.400/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the accused-petitioner was tried for the offence under section 4/25 of the Arms Act by the learned 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (JD) and Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur city, Jaipur and vide judgment and order dated 20.4.2004 convicted and sentenced under section 4/25 of the Arms Act for a period of one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.400/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction, appeal preferred was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur city, Jaipur on 13.5.2004 whereby conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner has been confirmed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of trial accused had been in custody for more than six months, therefore, lenient view in relation to award of sentence be taken against him. It is contended that in some of the cases accused petitioner has already been acquitted. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the learned trial court has found that the accused is a habitual criminal and has repeated similar type of crimes, therefore, the conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner requires to be maintained. I have considered the submissions made before me and carefully perused the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below and also perused the material available on record. 3 It is to be seen that the accused was apprehended by the petrolling party of the police on 11.6.2003 at 7.00 a.m. in the morning and a knife from the left pocket of the pent of the accused was recovered. The petrolling party asked the accused about the license of the knife to which he stated that he was not having any license and disclosed his identity as Mehrudeen son of Babudeen resident of 135, Gali No.5, Jiyauddin Colony. A case was registered and after trial the accused has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in the case and tendered several documents in evidence. A perusal of the statement of the witnesses clearly indicates that the accused was apprehended and he was arrested by the police and a memo Ex.P-4 was prepared. A sharp edged weapon- knife was seized through memo Ex.P-1. PW-1 and 2 have stated that the accused was having the knife. PW-3 Satyaveer Singh has identified the recovered knife. The learned trial court has discussed the evidence and found proved the offence. On appeal, the learned appellate court has also discussed the evidence and it has also been found that the accused is a habitual criminal and in some of the cases he was convicted and some cases were pending relating to riots, loot, dacoity etc. After carefully examining the entire material, I am of the opinion that the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence in this case and looking to the antecedents of the accused-petitioner, I do not feel persuaded to take a lenient view 4 in relation to the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)