PALOK BASU, J. - (1.) THE applicant Gulfam has been convicted under Section 25.. Arms Act by the Magistrate's order dated 2.5.89 "and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00. This order of conviction and sentence has been upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge Moradabad on 24.1.90. This revision has been-filed by the applicant against the said two order and judgment, which was admitted only on the question of sentence on 27.3.90.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution story on 13.6.85 the applicant was apprehended in village Vilakoodan and a country made pistol and two cartridges were recovered from has possession. The prosecution case relating to the recovery has been believed by the courts below which shows that the applicant was having the possession of illicit arms without licence. Hence nothing can be said so far as the conviction of the applicant under Section 25 Arms Act concerned. Sri R.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant then argued that the sentence of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000.00 appears to be very much excessive in as much as normally three to six months substantive sentence alone is awarded. He has drawn the attention of the court to the fact that the applicant has already been in jail for about three months. He laid great stress that nearly five years have already elapsed and no useful purpose will be served, if the applicant is sent to jail all over again. Sri Shivaji Misra learned A.G.A. has been heard in opposition. Learned counsel has not been able to show anything to the contrary and it does appear from the judgment that the applicant has already undergone about three months sentence.
(3.) ON reading of the judgment of the Magis­trate there can not be found justifiable reason for imposing fine also for the said recovery. The maintaining of the fine by the lower Court is also without any justifiable reason. On the facts and circumstance of the present case, the period undergone seems to be more sufficient to meet the ends of justice.;