IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Revision No. 172 of 2008 Iswar Singh Manral W/o Sri Swaroop Singh R/o Village Manar (Batuli Banj) P.S. Lohaghat, District Champawat. ...…………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ...…………. Respondent Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2004, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, in Criminal Case No. 178 of 2003, against accused / revisionist Iswar Singh Manral, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the State, and perused the record. 2 3) Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2001, accused / revisionist Iswar Singh Manral, who was accused in connection with Crime No. 107 of 2001, relating to offence punishable under Section 387 of I.P.C., near crossing of Kheti Khan, was found in possession of a country made pistol, for which he had no license to possess. He was arrested on the spot. In view of said fact, Crime No. 108 of 2001, was registered against the accused / revisionist Iswar Singh Manral, relating to offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and investigation was made. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Before the trial court, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 V.C. Pant, P.W. 2 Devki Nandan, P.W. 3 Ashok Kumar Dikitia, P.W. 4 constable Bishan Lal, and P.W. 5 Sabbrat, were examined. The evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and opportunity to adduce evidence in defence was given. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that charge of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, is proved against the accused Iswar Singh Manral, and after hearing on sentence, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, and directed to pay fine of ` 1000/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 08.06.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, in Criminal Case No. 178 of 2003, Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2004 was filed by the convict (present revisionist), which was dismissed vide 3 impugned order dated 12.08.2008, by the Sessions Judge, Champawat. Hence, this revision. 4) I have gone through the lower court record and perused the impugned orders. There is sufficient evidence on record adduced by the prosecution which amply proves charge of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and there appears no illegality in the conviction recorded by the trial court, in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. However, the sentence awarded appears to be maximum permissible under the law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would have met, had the trial court sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 5) Accordingly, this revision is disposed of confirming the conviction recorded by the courts below, but the sentence awarded under Section 25 of Arms Act, against the revisionist Iswar Singh Manral is reduced to imprisonment for a period of one year. He is in jail. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. January 06, 2011. H. Negi