1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT RAGHUVEER PRASAD TEWARI VS. STATE OF RAJ. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 490 OF 1999 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated May 19, 1999 of Addl. Sessions Judge No.1` Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1998 whereby the appeal was partly allowed and the order of conviction dated April 9, 1986 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.3 Kota in Criminal case No. 280 of 1977 was confirmed and the accused petitioner was released on Probation for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The accused petitioner was convicted for offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act by the trial court. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Anurag Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by accused petitioner Raghuveer Prasad against the order dated May 19, 1999 of Addl. Sessions Judge No.1` Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1998 whereby the appeal was partly allowed and the order of conviction dated April 9, 1986 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.3 Kota in Criminal case No. 280 2 of 1977 was confirmed and the accused petitioner was released on Probation for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The accused petitioner was convicted for offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act by the trial court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of an oral report submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Station Kithunipole, Kota on April 13, 1977 FIR No. 34 of 1977 was registered against the accused petitioner to the effect that on that day while he was on patrolling duty near Patanpole Mathuradish Mandir, on reaching infront of shop of Pan Beedi he saw accused petitioner running towards “Sarai Ka Sathan” with a Pistol in his hand followed by Ram Kumar and Pati Ram Constables. Having come to know that the accused petitioner was armed with a loaded pistol for which the accused had no licence to retain, he laid Nakabandi near Lal Burz. At that time 3 the accused Raghuveer Prasad came running with the pistol in his hand, thereupon he was caught and on search, one cartridge of 12 bore gun in the left pocket was recovered alongwith country made pistol from him. On the basis of aforesaid report, the FIR was registered for offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. After usual investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused petitioner for offence under section 3/25 Arms Act. Charge was framed against the accused petitioner and he denied the same and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined six witnesses. Statement of accused petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide its judgment dated April 9, 1986 convicted the accused petitioner under Section 3/25 Arms Act and sentenced for a period of 3 months and fine of Rs. 300/- 4 in default of payment of fine to undergo one month RI. Against this order of the Judicial Magistrate, the accused petitioner filed appeal which too was partly allowed and his conviction was affirmed but in place of sentence he was given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and was directed to submit personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/-for keeping peace and be of good behavriour for a period of two years. Against this order the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the accused petitioner has been convicted by the trial court and thereafter the appellate court while allowing the appeal partly directed the accused petitioner to submit personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour 5 for a period of two years. This order of the appellate court deserves to be set aside, as the appellate court has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Thus the order confirming the order of conviction may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no illegality in the order passed by the appellate court extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused petitioner. Thus the order passed by the appellate court does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. I have gone through the order passed by the appellate court and in my opinion the order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 6 5. For these reasons I dismiss the revision petition being devoid of merit. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/