S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 51/1989 State Vs. Hari Ram Date of judgment : 24.4.2008 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH CHANDRA BHAGWATI, J. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, P.P. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment imposed by the learned Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Doongla on the accused respondent Hari Ram for the offence under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of Arms Act, the State has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of punishment. The accused respondent Hari Ram is alleged to have been on 15.9.1988 in possession of a single barrel gun on 15.9.1988. It is also alleged that the accused had no licence to carry or possess this arm which was necessarily required under the provisions of Arms Act. The police registered the case, commenced the investigation and after its completion, filed the charge sheet in the court of Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate, Doongla who framed the charge under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and read over to the accused. The accused pleaded guilty of the charge and the lower court on his confession accordingly convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment till rise of the court with a fine of Rs. 150, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 15 days imprisonment. The learned public Prosecutor has argued that the punishment awarded to the accused respondent is not adequate and keeping in view the gravity of offence, the accused respondent should have been awarded severe punishment. None has appeared on behalf of the accused respondent in the court. The criminal appeal has been pending in this court since 28.2.1989. It has already become very old and now after approximately 19 years, I do not feel inclined to issue notice to the accused respondent for his appearance and defend himself as this exercise again is likely to take more time. It does not appear to be just and proper to intervene in the order of sentence passed by the lower curt after lapse of 19 years. It seems that the lower court took a lenient view in awarding sentence for the reason that the accused has confessed guilt voluntarily. I am of the view that the occurrence took place as early as in September, 1988 & the accused has already suffered a tiring trauma of trial for about 20 years and now after 20 years awarding a severe sentence and sending him to jail at this stage shall not, to my view serve the ends of justice. For this reason alone I do not feel inclined to interfere in the order of sentence passed by the lower court. In view of the above, the State appeal with regard to enhancement of sentence is dismissed. (MAHESH CHANDRA BHAGWATI), J. ns.