Criminal Revision No. 1609 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1609 of 2005 Date of Decision : 11.02.2011. Baldev Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated July 4th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 4th, 2005 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, whereby, the petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 2. Story of the Prosecution is that on October 31st, 2001, Amritpal Singh, Sub Inspector, CIA Staff,Bhatinda along with other Police officials was on his way from Bhatinda towards village Bir Behman on patrol duty. When the Police Party reached the bridge of a canal in area of village Bir Behman, two motor-cyclists were going towards village Bir Behman. On seeing the Police Party, they became perplexed and tried to give a slip to the Police. However, they were apprehended. On personal search of the petitioner, a country-made pistol along with a live cartridge was recovered. After completing the formalities, the accused was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of Criminal Revision No. 1609 of 2005 2 sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner that is, 2 months and 4 days on the grounds that (i) the petitioner was in his 20s at the time of commission of offence, ii). he has suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 10 years; iii). the petitioner is neither previous convict nor has he indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case and; (iv) he is the only bread earner of his family. To support the contention, reliance has been placed upon Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 694, wherein, in similar circumstances, the sentence of accused was reduced to 1 month and 9 days, by this Court. 4. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 5. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 11.02.2011. som