IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2002 Jagat Singh aged about 27 years, son of Sri Jodh Singh R/o Village Balana, Patti Dudhpokhra, Tehsil and District Champawat. ………. Revisionist Versus State …….Respondent Present : Sri M.C. Pande, learned counsel present for the revisionist. Sri G.S. Sandhu, learned G.A. present for the State/respondent. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision has been directed against judgment and order dated 07.05.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence under section 25 Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. The revisionist Jagat Singh preferred Appeal No.4 of 2002 in the court of Sessions Judge, Champawat which was dismissed for being devoid of merit. Hence, this revision. Brief facts sans unnecessary details are that on 05.02.2001 at about 08.00 p.m. complainant/informant’s house was invaded by Jagat Singh alongwith co-accused persons in order to cause harm and threatened him. They were nabbed at the spot by the villagers and gun was recovered from Jagat Singh revisionist alongwith one live cartridge. This gun was found to be owned by Mohan Singh. 2 Another villager Fateh Singh a companion of Jagat Singh was present at the time of commission of crime. This is another aspect that Mohan Singh owning the gun was tried for the offence under Section 30 Arms Act. The Accused persons were acquitted for the offence under Section 504 & 506 (ii) I.P.C., while at the same time, they were convicted for the offence under Sections 452, 323/34 I.P.C. Jagat Singh was also convicted for offence under section 25 Arms Act as above. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Government Advocate for the State. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist Jagat Singh that there are minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses e.g. as per PW-1 gun and cartridge were sealed by the Patwari/Investigating Officer at the spot, while another PW-2 states that gun was sealed at the Police Station and some other contradictions which has been brought to the notice of this revisional court cannot be looked into becase these are not the clinching contradictions, which could create doubt in the prosecution story. Besides, all these minor contradictions cannot be looked into by this Revisional Court because the revision is to be appreciated on the point of law only. Rather, but if the evidence on the fact is so glaringly contradictory as to effect the root of the case, then this Revisional Court can appreciate the submissions so advanced. However, on the question of sentence, learned defence counsel has prayed on the ground of mercy that revisionist is a villager and in the interest of the justice, he may be awarded 3 sentence which he has already been undergone and fine which has been imposed by the court below. It is stated that revisionist has already been deposited fine of Rs.500/-. At the same time, learned G.A. requested the Court for enhancing the fine instead of reducing it. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, I feel that ends of justice will be met it taking the facts into consideration, the revision is disposed of with this modification in sentence that the accused/revisionist shall remain convicted for the aforesaid offence for the period of imprisonment, which he has already undergone. However, the fine imposed by the court below shall remain intact. The fine already deposited shall be deducted. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith for compliance of the order (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) JKJ 24.06.2011 4 and the conviction awarded by the court below is modified to the extent that the sentence is reduced to the period which the revisionist has already undergone.