R.P.Shukla,J. - (1.) THIS Criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and the order dated 7-10-86 passed by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1985 dismissing the appeal of the applicant and affirming the conviction and sentence of three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under section 4/25 of the Arms Act passed by the Judicial Magistrate Khurja in Criminal Case No. 1188 of 1982, State v. Sayeed.
(2.) THE revision has been pressed firstly on the ground that only police Officials have been examined as witnesses of the search and recovery and no public witness has been examined. I have perused the Judgments. The incident has taken place on the road in the town. An attempt was made by the Sub-Inspector of Police to call witnesses of the public but he failed. The witnesses examined can not be said to be interested and untruthful witnesses only because they belonged to the police department. It has also been pressed on the ground that the applicant has been prosecuted without prior sanction of the Distt.Magistrate. Section 39 of the Arms Act is applicable only for prosecution under section 3 of the Arms Act, this section is not applicable in the instant case. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also pressed this revision on the ground that the general diary showing departure of the police Officials have not been produced before the Trial Court. The general diary was only corroborative piece of evidence and it looses its value when witnesses have been relied upon by the two Courts below.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has also contended that this is first offence of the applicant and a lenient view ought to be taken in such a matter. Youngmen moving with unlicensed arms have become hazard to the society these days and I am of the view that no leniency be shown in such cases. In this view of the matter the revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.;