- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Applicants Havaldar and Ramesh have been convicted under Sec tion 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to six months' R. I. The prosecution case was that on 13-12-1984 at about 3-15 a. m. the applicants started firing at a police party which want to apprehend them. The applicants however, were arrested at 4. 40 a. m. and then from the possession of Havaldar a country-made gun and five cartridges were recovered and from the possession of Ramesh a country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. At the trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge the applicants were acquitted of the charge under Section 301, I. P. C. and allied Sections, but because of the alleged recoveries the aforesaid conviction and sentence was recorded by the learned trial Judge.
(2.) THE appeal filed by the applicants having failed they have preferred this revision. Sri U. K. Saxena learned Counsel for the applicants has argued the revision only on the question of sentence as according to him, the period already undergone on the facts and circumstances of the present case is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Sri Shivaji Misra, learned A. G. A. has been heard in opposition. It may be noted that this revision was admitted on the question of sentence only on 6-12-1989. It appears that the matter is of 1984 i. e. six years have already elapsed. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants have already undergone nearly three months sentence as under-trial and after their conviction by two Courts below, the said period undergone should meet the ends of justice. Nothing contrary could be shown by learned Counsel for the State to demolish the factual and legal arguments.
(3.) IT is notable that no injury was caused to any one of the police party and acquittal under Section 307, I. P. C. and other allied Sections has already become final and it has not been challenged. IT appears from the record that the applicants have already undergone as under-trial and convict a total period of about three months. On the facts and circumstan ces of this case it appears to be just and proper to direct that the period already undergone should meet the ends of justice as regards the charges and conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Consequently the conviction of the applicants under Section 25 of the Arms Act is maintained but their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender to the same. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence the revision is dismissed. Partly allowed. .;