S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by petitioner Sohan Lal against the judgment dated May 10, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar whereby the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated June 17, 1980 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in criminal case No. 366/75. By the order aforesaid the Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that during the course of investigation of a criminal case, one Salam informed the S. H. O. police station Anupgarh on January 24, 1975 that he had brought six revolvers from Pakistan and sold the same to the petitioner and similarly he had sold ten revolvers to one Anirudh and he could get the same recovered from those persons. On the basis of the aforesaid information, police officers started a search for the petitioner and on January 26,1975 the petitioner was found coming with a bag near the railway station Anupgarh on the Anupgarh Binjore road. Petitioner was stopped and the bag in his possession was searched as a result of the aforesaid search 6 revolvers of 32 bore were found in possession of the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not possess any licence for the aforesaid revolvers, he was arrested and the revolvers were taken in their possession by the police. THEreafter a case under Section 25 (1) (a) was registered against the petitioner at police station Anupgarh and after investigation and obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate, challan was submitted against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. After trial the Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated June 17, 1980 convicted the petitioner of the offence under section 25 (1) (a) and the said conviction and sentence was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. I have heard Shri M L. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The first contention urged by Shri Garg was that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner. In this regard the submission of Shri Garg was that it was necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence to show what materials ware taken into consideration by the District Magistrate before granting the sanction and that no such evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. The order of sanction (Ex. P. 6) states that the District Magistrate had given the sanction after making a full enquiry into the report which was submitted by the S. H. O. police station, Anupgarh showing that the petitioner was found in possession of six revolvers of 32 bore and he did not possess any licence for the same. In view of the aforesaid order Ex P. 6 which states that the District Magistrate had considered the report which was submitted by the petitioner and had made a full enquiry into the said report before granting the sanction, it can be presumed that all the relevant papers were considered by the District Magistrate before he gave the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and it was not necessary for the prosecution to produce any further evidence about the materials which were placed before the District Magistrate before he gave the sanction. The first contention urged by Shri Garg cannot therefore, be accepted. The next contention urged by Shri Garg was that the courts below have erred in placing reliance on the testimony of Gopalram P. W. 1 and Kan Singh P. W. 2 with regard to the alleged recovery of the revolvers found in possession of the petitioner on January 26, 1975. The submission of Shri Garg was that both the aforesaid witnesses are police officers and that the only independent witness about the recovery is Jagdish PW. 3 who has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the aforesaid recovery. Shri Garg has submitted that the testimony of Gopalram P. W. 1 and Kansingh PW 2 about the recovery was inherently improbable and cannot be accepted and that the evidence of Gopiram D. W. 1 and the petitioner D. W. 2 has been wrongly rejected by the courts below. In support of the above submission Shri Garg has placed reliance on certain contradictions in the evidence of PW 2 Gopalram and PW 2 Kansingh. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of Shri Garg. So far as the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under secs. 397/401 Cr. P. C. is concerned the law is well settled that normally the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect or manifest error in law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. See State of Orissa v Nakula Sahu (l) In the present case both the courts below have accepted the testimony of Gopalram P. W. 1 who was S. H. O. Anupgerh and Kan Singh P. W. 2 who was Circle Officer, Raisinghnagar and have held that the evidence of Gopiram D. W. 1 was inherently improbable and could not be accepted. Shri Garg submits that the evidence of Gopalram PW 1 and Kan Singh P. W. 2 is improbable and that the evidence of Gopiram D. W. 1 must be accepted. In my view the courts below were entitled to choose between the version given by Gopalram P. W. 1 and Kan Singh PW 2 on the one hand and the version given by Gopiram D W. 1 on the other hand and they have choosen to accept the version as given by Gopalram P. W. 1 and Kan Singh P. W. 2 and have placed reliance on the testimony of Gopalram P. W. 1 and Kan Singh P. W. 2. In my opinion the aforesaid appreciation of evidence by the courts below does not suffer from such an error which may justify interference by this Court in revision. Shri Garg has lastly submitted that the petitioner is in Jail since May 10, 1982 and that the sentence may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. In this connection Shri Garg has submitted that the petitioner has not been convicted in connection with any other offence earlier. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be subserved if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
(3.) IN the result the revision petition is partly allowed and while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced and he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The petitioner is at present confined in judicial lockup Raisinghnagar. He may be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. .;