P.K.Jain - (1.) LIST has been revised. None appears for the parties.
(2.) REVISIONIST, Kamla, was convicted by the trial court Ist (Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur) under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1984 preferred by him before the Sessions Judge was also dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 21.7.84 and the order of conviction and sentence was maintained. Present revision is against the judgment and order of the appellate court. Since none has appeared to press this revision, I have carefully gone through the record. The first ground on which the findings of the courts below are challenged is that material contradictions in the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have not been taken into consideration by the courts below. Perusal of the judgments of the trial court as well as of the appellate court shows that alleged contradictions were dealt with in detail by both the courts and cogent reasons were given for holding that virtually there was no contradiction and in any case alleged contradictions do not discredit the witnesses. Second ground taken is that sanction to prosecute was not obtained prior to taking of the cognizance by the trial court. This point does not appear to have been pressed before the appellate court. The trial court has, however, dealt with such contention. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 14.8.82. Sanction was, however, obtained on 18.9.82. The trial court has, however, held that cognizance was taken on 9.11.82 only after sanction to prosecute was obtained. It appears that before the trial court, it was argued that the date of submission of the charge-sheet should be treated as the date of taking cognizance which contention was repelled by the trial court relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1979 Cr LJ 545, In my view, no error in this regard was committed by the trial court. The third contention is that the evidence of P.W. 2 who was inimical to the revisionist was wrongly accepted by the courts below. Evidence of inimical witness cannot be rejected out-right on the ground that he is inimical to the accused. The Court is required to scrutinize his evidence with greater care and caution which has been done in this case by the courts below. There is no ground to interfere with the well considered judgments of the courts below. The revision fails so far as the order of conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is concerned.
(3.) THE incident had occurred on 17.7.82. THE trial ended in December, 1983. After dismissal of the appeal on 21.7.84 the appellant was taken into custody and was directed to be released on bail by this Court on 23.8.84, i.e., more than a month after dismissal of, the appeal. It is now around 13 years since the appeal has been dismissed by the appellate court and the revisionist has already suffered imprisonment for more than one month. Now sending of the revisionist to jail will amount to disturbing his family life. Hence, in my view, the period for which the revisionist has been in jail would meet the ends of justice. THE order of sentence awarded by the courts below is modified and the revisionist is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone. With this modification in the order of sentence, the revision is dismissed.;