-1- Criminal Revision No.1140 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1140 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 22, 2010. Bed Pal alias Langra ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short `the Act') by the trial Court and -2- Criminal Revision No.1140 of 2003. sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner. I have heard Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. In this case, the accused-petitioner was apprehended by the police while they were patrolling the area. On conducting personal search of the accused, 315 bore country made pistol was recovered from him. The petitioner could not produce any permit or licence for retaining the pistol. Head Constable Dharam Singh (P.W.1), Head Constable Lahana Singh (P.W.2), Head Constable Balwan Singh (P.W.3), Head Constable Ramphal (P.W.4), Silak Ram, Reader to the District Magistrate (P.W.5), Rajender Singh, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer (P.W.6) and Assistant Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh (P.W.7) appeared to prove the allegations of the prosecution. The accused pleaded denial simpliciter and false implication in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No evidence was led by him in his defence. Head Constable Dharam Singh (P.W.1) had corroborated the prosecution story and had identified the accused as being the person from whom the weapon in question was -3- Criminal Revision No.1140 of 2003. recovered. The weapon was found in working condition by Head Constable Balwan Singh (P.W.3). His report in this regard is Exhibit P.W.3/A. Assistant Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh (P.W.7), who is the Investigating Officer, proved the entire police proceedings. Merely because the case of the prosecution is based on the statements of the official witnesses is no ground to dislodge it. The recovery of the weapon was recovered by the police officials in the discharge of their official duties. They had no animosity with the petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner could not seriously challenge the veracity of the prosecution case, which stands proved by the cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution. In view of the above, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Section 25 of the Act. The impugned judgment of conviction is, accordingly, upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence relates to 10.11.1999 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for more than ten years, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be adequately met with if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years awarded to the petitioner for the said offence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year without altering the sentence of fine of Rs.500/- and the default clause. I order accordingly. The impugned sentence orders stand modified accordingly. With the above modification in the sentence orders, this -4- Criminal Revision No.1140 of 2003. revision petition is hereby dismissed. February 22, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE