In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1059 of 2002 Date of decision: February 20, 2008 Kawaljit Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as “the petitioner”) against the judgment dated 14.10.1999 convicting him under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. The allegations, as per prosecution, are that on 27.3.1998, when ASI Jaswant Singh accompanied by other police officials was present on the bridge of drain Barnala-Naiwala road in connection with checking of suspected criminals, the petitioner was seen coming on right side of the bridge of the drain. On suspicion, he was apprehended and .32 bore country made revolver was recovered from the right dub of his pant. Ruqa was sent, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the petitioner. The case was investigated and ultimately a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. Crl. Revision No. 1059 of 2002 -2- *** The petitioner was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. During trial the prosecution examined Sham Sunder (PW1) Clerk in the office of District Magistrate Sangrur, HC Hariwansh (PW2), ASI Jaswant Singh (PW3), HC Gulshan Kumar (PW4), SI Kuldeep Singh (PW5) and HC Gurnar Singh (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further submitted that his father's sister (Bua) is married at village Sanjura and he had gone to see her. On his way back at bus stand of village Bhadalwarh, when was about to board a bus, the police party apprehended him and planted this false case. On trial, the petitioner was convicted and his appeal also failed. Heard. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner without assailing the judgment of conviction has submitted that the petitioner has undergone 6 months of the sentence and has also paid the fine, therefore, if possible, the sentence may be reduced to that of already undergone. Having examined the records of the case, the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998. No bad antecedents have been brought on the record so as to dub the petitioner as habitual offender. He must be a reformed man by now. He is an young man having wife and children to look after. Thus, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to send him back to prison. Crl. Revision No. 1059 of 2002 -3- *** Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala for compliance. February 20, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge