B.D. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS order will govern both Criminal Revisions Nos. 1869 of 1967 and 2137 of 1967 which are before me as connected revisions. After hearing Mr. D.P. Mittal, who has appeared as counsel for the Applicants in both the revisions, I am of the opinion that these revisions must fail.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on the evening of 23 -10 -1966, three persons, viz, Mahabir Singh (Applicant in Criminal Revision No. 1869 of 1967), Ram Charan (Applicant in Criminal Revision No. 2137 of 1967) and one Kaltan were arrested together and on a search of their persons having been made whereas the Applicants Mahabir Singh and Ram Charan were each found in possession of a pistol and two live cartridges, Kalian was found in possession of three live cartridges only. None of the three was able to produce a license for possessing any of the above articles with the result that, after the necessary sanction, each of the above three persons were tried separately for an offence under the Indian Arms Act. The trial court convicted all the three persons whereafter three appeals were riled. All these appeals were decided by the same Sessions Judge. By order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 4 -10 - -1967, Mahabir Singh's appeal was dismissed. By order of the same Sessions Judge dated 5 -10 -1967, Ram Charan's appeal was also dismissed, but by order of the same Sessions Judge passed that very day, i.e., 5 -10 -1967, Kalian's appeal was allowed. Kalian was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. Mahabir Singh and Ram Charan thereafter filed the two revisions which are before me. During the pendency of these revisions an application was filed in Ram Charan's revision (Criminal Revision No. 2137 of 1967) praying for admission of the judgment of the Sessions Judge in Kalian's appeal. A certified copy of the said judgment was filed along with the application and Learned Counsel for the Applicants has based his contention mainly on the judgment of the appellate court whereby Kalian was acquitted. Learned Counsel has urged that keeping in view the fact of Kalian's acquittal, the proper course to adopt is to allow these revisions also and acquit the Applicants. Reliance has been pleaded on the decision of Tripathi, J. in the case of Dewan Singh v. State, 1965 AWR 113. After perusing the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the grounds given by him for acquitting Kalian I am unable to accept Learned Counsel's contention. As regards Kalian, the reaction of the learned Sessions Judge was that it was somewhat surprising why Kalian should have been carrying about cartridges only without also carrying any weapon from which the cartridges could be fired. The finding recorded by him was that, though Kalian was arrested along with two other miscreants (i.e., the Applicants in the revisions before me), since these other miscreants had been found in possession of illicit firearm and ammunitions and were to be prosecuted, Kalian was also taken to be a bad character and a case was built up against him in order to bring him on level with his associates The learned Judge further observed that Kalian was found possessed of a lathi and in all probability that was the weapon he intended to use in the event of necessity and further, that since mere possession of a lathi would not have sufficed to bring the case within the domain of the Arms this circumstance probably made the prosecution to place some of the ammunitions with Kalian. The learned Sessions Judge finally observed that, in any case, it was not free from doubt if ammunition alone had been recovered from the possession of Kalian in the circumstances referred to by him. The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge was one giving Kalian the benefit of doubt and acquitting him. I have failed to find any reason to hold that the finding of conviction recorded against the Applicants before me is, in any manner, inconsistent with the finding of acquittal recorded in favour of Kalian. The facts which led to the decision of Tripathi, J. in Dewan Singh v. State (supra) were different and I am unable to interpret that case as laying down that in all cases where a number of persons are tried separately in respect of an offence the factual foundation of which happens to be the same, the acquittal of any one of them must result in the acquittal of others also. There are no doubt certain observations which might be construed as supporting Learned Counsel's contention, but I construe the decision of Tripathi, J. as being nothing more than a recognition of the principle that if the finding of acquittal recorded in respect of one person, against which the State Government does not file an appeal, is inconsistent with the finding of conviction as regards some other persons, those other persons should also get the benefit of the finding of acquittal which has not been appealed from by the State Government. I do not take the decision of Tripathi, J. as laying down that, even though there be nothing in the finding of acquittal regarding one person which may, in any manner, conflict or be inconsistent with the finding of conviction as regards other persons, those other persons must also, nevertheless, be acquitted merely because of the order of acquittal of one of them.
(3.) AS regards the merits of the conviction recorded against the Applicants in these two revisions nothing has been pointed out which might justify interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional powers. The sentence awarded to the Applicants also does not, in any manner, appear to be severe. The result is that these revisions must fail.;