J.P.Chaturvedi - (1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dated 1-7-1980, affirming the conviction of applicant Shabbir Malihabadi of the offences under Section 307, IPC, Section 25 Indian Arms Act and Sec. 25 (4) Arms Act and sentences awarded to him by the trial court thereunder, which were four years, one year and six months respectively.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 8-8-1979 S. I. T. S. Misra had received information at 11.00 A. M. that three miscreants were coming on a stolen scooter from Transport Nagar and were going to Prempurwa and that they had illicit arms with them, he collected witnesses and the entire party concealed themselves behind a Tanki near the shop of Preetam Pansari. At 11.30 A M. the three persons were seen coming on a scooter. THE applicant Shabbir was driving the scooter. THEy were checked from proceeding on their way. THE applicant fired a shot at T. S. Misra, which missed him. Two of the miscreants ran away while the applicant was arrested on the spot. On search of his person a country made pistol, one fired cartridge and four live cartridges and one knife were recovered. Some opium was also recovered from him. THE applicant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act, but he; was acquitted of the same by the lower appellate court. All the articles recovered from him on the spot were sealed and a recovery memo was prepared. The applicant pleaded not [guilty and he stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution examined PW 1 S. I. T. S. Misra and PW 2 Ram Prasad who have deposed as to the arrest of the applicant and recovery of the articles mentioned above. The investigation was made by PW 4 Sri H. S. Misra.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the sanction, with which the prosecution of the applicant for the offence under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act was initiated, was not valid inasmuch as the sanctioning authority had not applied his mind. No doubt the sanction, Ext. Ka-6, is comprised of a cyclostyled form, the blanks of which have been filled in hand-writing. Bat there is evidence of PW 4 H. S. Misra that he placed the pistol and the cartridges recovered from the applicant before the District Magistrate and that he also placed all the papers before him, before he accwded sanction. This statement of the witness remained unchallenged. It is, therefore, quite clear from this statement of H. S. Misra that the sanctioning authority had applied his mind before according sanction. It was next urged that an offence under Section 307, IPC, against the applicant was not made out, as there was no injury caused to T. S. Misra, at whom the applicant fired shot. There is no reason to doubt the statement of the two eye witnesses that the applicant fired a shot at 1. S. Misra. It was only a chance that the shot did not hit him. In these circumstances, an offence is made out under Section 307, IPC also against the applicant. Since no injury was caused to T. S. Misra, a lenient view may be taken in regard to sentence. I think the ends of justice would be served, if the sentence is reduced to one year's RI.;