- (1.) R. K. Saxena, J. This revision against conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is pressed only on the question of sentence. Sri R. P. Tripathi, counsel for the State Government is present. It is not necessary to summon the record and the matter can be conveniently disposed of after perusal of the judgments of the courts below from which certain circumstances spell out and can be reasonably taken into consideration.
(2.) THERE are two revisionists and each was, after usual trial convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine to the tune of Rs. 300. 00. The appeal preferred by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 25. 1. 90 passed by the IX Additional Munsif - Magistrate, Moradabad was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad per his order dated 29. 3. 90 who confirmed the conviction and sentence noted above. The observations made by the learned Sessions Judge clearly show that neither of these applicants was ever prosecuted and convicted for any offence earlier. They appear to be quite young and, obviously, each has a family to support. Infliction of punishment of fine may materially affect their economic backbone. The matter remained pending before the trial court for about four years. In all probability, there was a lot of mental strain on each of them during these years. These circumstances justify the acceptance of the conten tion of the learned counsel for the revisionists that the sentence awarded to each of them is severe.
(3.) EACH revisionist has remained in jail for about four months in this crime which is in my opinion, sufficient punishment for the first offence committed by them. The revision is allowed in part; the conviction of each revisionist under Section 25 of the Arms Act is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to each of them is deduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is set aside.;