LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Proliferation of arms and ammunition, whether licensed or not, in the country disrupts the social order and development, vitiates law and order situation, directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts which needs to be curbed. We are sorry to note the law enforcing agencies and to certain extent the courts in the country always treat the crimes lightly without noticing the havoc they can create - to the ordinary peace loving citizens of this country and to the national security and the integrity and the unity of this nation. We may indicate, the case in hand shows, how casually and lightly, these types of cases are being dealt with by the courts.- Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, he has necessarily to undergo the minimum mandatory sentence, prescribed under the Statute. 11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has overlooked this vital fact and awarded only one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The High Court has made it worst by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only seven days, in a case where the accused should have undergone a minimum sentence of three years and fine under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 12. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of sentence passed by the High Court as well as the courts below and order that the respondent-accused has to undergo a minimum period of three years sentence as prescribed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and also with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, another three months simple imprisonment.


                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



               CRIMINAL   APPEAL  NO.1324             OF 2012
               @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5389 of 2011




State of M.P.                                           …    Appellant

                                   Versus

Ayub Khan                                         …     Respondent



                               J U D G M E N T



K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.



1.    Leave granted.




2.    Proliferation of arms and ammunition, whether licensed or not, in  the
country disrupts the social order and development, vitiates  law  and  order
situation, directly contributes towards  lethality  of  violent  acts  which
needs to be curbed.  We are sorry to note the law enforcing agencies and  to
certain extent the courts in the country always  treat  the  crimes  lightly
without noticing the havoc they can create -

to the ordinary peace loving citizens of this country and  to  the  national
security and the integrity and the unity of this nation.  We  may  indicate,
the case in hand shows, how casually and lightly, these types of  cases  are
being dealt with by the courts.



3.     ASI S.S. Gaur and P.P. Mrigwas while on patrol duty apprehended  that
the accused on 13.09.2005 at 8.30 pm while they were  coming  from  Bakaniya
to Mrigwas Road, Guna, M.P.  The accused was found to be  in  possession  of
country made barrel gun with two round bullets and 50 grams  of  explosives,
without any  licence.   The  accused  was  charge-sheeted  for  the  offence
punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms  Act,  1959  (for  short  ‘the
Arms Act’) and was tried before the Court of the Judicial  Magistrate  First
Class, Chachoda.  From the side of  the  prosecution  seven  witnesses  were
examined.  After considering the oral and documentary  evidence,  the  court
came to the conclusion that the accused was  guilty  of  the  offence  under
Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and  on  sentence,  the  court  passed  the
following order:

           “There is no previous crime in  the  name  of  the  accused  and
           certainly the accused is the first time offender  but  from  the
           possession of the accused a rifle was  found  illegally  in  his
           possession, therefore, it is  not  proper  to  adopt  a  lenient
           approach towards the accused.  Only in view of the time taken by
           the trial and the time already spent by the accused in  custody,
           the accused is not punished with  the  maximum  punishment  and,
           therefore, the accused Ayub Khan is sentenced -

           to one year of R.I. and a  fine  of  Rs.100/-  for  the  offence
           punishable u/w 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.”

4.    The Court then noticed that the accused was in  custody  from  14.9.05
to  20.9.05 and the said period was  deducted  from  the  original  sentence
applying Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .



5.    Aggrieved by the said order the accused filed Criminal  Appeal  No.170
of 2008 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda on  the  ground  that
the conviction of the accused under Section 25(1)(a) of  the  Arms  Act  was
illegal and that the accused had not committed any offence.  The  Additional
Sessions Judge,  however,  vide  his  order  dated  9.7.2008  confirmed  the
conviction and the sentence awarded by the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate.  The
accused then filed Criminal Revision No.472 of 2008 before the Hon’ble  High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.  The  High  Court  confirmed  the
order of conviction passed by the trial court but so far as the sentence  is
concerned, the High Court passed the following order on 15.01.2009:

           “so far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking  to  the
           limited prayer made by the counsel for the  petitioner  and  the
           nature of offence and the fact that the petitioner  has  already
           served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would  be
           served in case the jail sentence awarded to  the  petitioner  is
           reduced to the period already undergone, subject  to  depositing
           fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of two months, in default the
           -

           petitioner shall suffer jail sentence  awarded  by  the  Learned
           Court below.”

6.    Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  has
approached this Court.



7.    Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High  Court
and the courts below have committed an error in  not  awarding  the  minimum
statutory sentence to  the  accused,  even  after,  convicting  him  for  an
offence committed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.   Learned  counsel
submitted that as per the said Section the  minimum  statutory  sentence  is
three years but the same can be extended to  seven  years  and  the  accused
shall also be liable to fine.  Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
accused submitted that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of  the  case
on hand, the High Court was justified  in  confining  the  sentence  of  the
accused to the period already undergone subject to depositing  the  fine  of
Rs.5,000/-.



8.    We are of the view that the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well  as  the
Sessions Court have committed an error in the manner in which  sentence  has
been awarded and the High Court  has  committed  a  grievous  error  in  not
awarding the proper sentence after having found  the  accused  guilty  under
Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.  Error is apparent  on  the  face  of  the
High Court’s order.  The High Court has -

confined the sentence to the period the accused was in custody stating  that
he had already served substantive period of jail sentence.  We are sorry  to
note that the High Court has not taken pains to examine what was the  period
he had served by way of substantive sentence.  The accused  was  in  custody
only for seven days i.e. from 14.9.05 to 20.9.05.  We fail to  see  how  the
High  Court  has  reached  a  finding  that  the  accused  had  served   the
substantive period of jail sentence.



9.    We are of the view, that the High Court  and  the  courts  below  have
committed a serious error in not awarding  the  minimum  mandatory  sentence
prescribed under the Statute.  Chapter V of the  Arms  Act  deals  with  the
offences and penalties.  The accused  was  charge-sheeted  for  the  offence
under Section  25(1)(a)  of  the  Arms  Act  for  which   minimum  mandatory
sentence was not less than  three  years.   For  reference  sake,  the  said
provision, in its entirety, is extracted hereunder:

      “25.Punishment for certain offences --(1) Whoever

           (a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests  or
           proves,  or exposes  or offers for sale or transfer, or  has  in
           his possession  for sale, transfer, conversion,  repair, test or
           proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5;  or



           (b)  shortens  the  barrel  of  a   firearm   or   converts   an
           imitation firearm into a firearm in contravention of section  6;
           or

           -

           (c)         *     *    *     *      *

           (d) brings into, or takes   out   of,   India,   any   arms   or
           ammunition of  any  class or  description  in  contravention  of
            section 11

            shall be  punishable with  imprisonment for  a term which shall
           not be less than  three years but which   may  extend  to  seven
           years and shall also be liable to fine.”



10.   Legislature, in its wisdom, has fixed  a  mandatory  minimum  sentence
for certain offences - keeping, possessing arms and ammunition is a  serious
offence which shall not be less  than  three  years.   Legislature,  in  its
wisdom, felt that there should be a  mandatory  minimum  sentence  for  such
offences having felt the  increased  need  to  provide  for  more  stringent
punishment to curb unauthorised access to arms  and  ammunition,  especially
in a situation where we are facing with menace of terrorism and  other  anti
national activities.  A person who is found to be in possession  of  country
made barrel gun with two  round  bullets  and  50  grams  explosive  without
licence, must in the absence of proof to the  contrary  be  presumed  to  be
carrying it with the intention of using it when an opportunity  arise  which
would be  detrimental  to  the  people  at  large.   Possibly,  taking  into
consideration all those aspects, including the national interest and  safety
of the fellow citizens, the Legislature  in  its  wisdom  has  prescribed  a
minimum mandatory sentence.  Once the  accused  was  found  guilty  for  the
offence committed under -

Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, he has necessarily to undergo the  minimum
mandatory sentence, prescribed  under the Statute.

11.   The Chief Judicial Magistrate  has  overlooked  this  vital  fact  and
awarded only one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-, which was confirmed  by
the Sessions Court.  The High Court  has  made  it  worst  by  reducing  the
sentence to the period already undergone, which was only seven  days,  in  a
case where the accused should have undergone a  minimum  sentence  of  three
years and fine under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

12.   We, therefore, allow this appeal, set  aside  the  order  of  sentence
passed by the High Court as well as the courts  below  and  order  that  the
respondent-accused has to undergo a minimum period of three  years  sentence
as prescribed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and also  with  a  fine
of Rs.5000/-, in default, another three months simple imprisonment.




…..……....................................J
                                                  (K.S. Radhakrishnan)



                                …..……......................................J
                                             (Dipak Misra)
NEW DELHI
August  29 , 2012