IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2070 of 2004 Date of Decision 07.10.2010 Gurmeet Singh @ Laddi ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.S.Goraya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.06.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 19.09.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.06.1999, when ASI Paramjit Singh as well as other police officials were present over canal bridge of village Manesh, they apprehended the petitioner who was coming from the side of village Bharath. On his personal search, one country made loaded pistol of 303 bore, four live cartridges and one cartridge which was unloaded from the pistol were recovered and the same were taken into possession. Ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Consequently, on trial, he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Criminal Revision No.2070 of 2004 -2- Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence, led by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings in the Courts for the last 11 years. He has already undergone about five months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been brought on record to enable this Court to dub him as habitual offender, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things to take a lenient view in the matter. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 07.10.2010 mamta-II