[2025:RJ-JP:29012] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 752/2006 1. Resham Singh S/o Darshan Singh 2. Kulwant Singh S/o Dalip Singh both R/o Barbada, Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar. At present in District Jail, Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus The State of Rajasthan through the PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh, Adv. with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Ravi Kumar Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Add.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 30/07/2025 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist-petitioners challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2006 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Laxmangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.40/2005, whereby learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 09.11.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Laxmangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') in Criminal Case No.149/1999, whereby, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:29012] (2 of 4) [CRLR-752/2006] Sr. No. Name of Accused- Petitioner Conviction under Section Fine Sentence 1. Resham Singh 3/25 Arms Act Rs.500/- 1 Year S.I. and in default 2 months' additional S.I. 2. Kulwant Singh 3/25 Arms Act Rs.500/- 1 Year S.I. and in default 2 months' additional S.I. 2. As per brief facts of the case, on 29.07.1999, one 12 bore loaded country made pistol and 3 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Resham Singh and 7 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Kulwant Singh, for which FIR No. 103/1999, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar was lodged, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and also exhibited some documents. The petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and did not produce any witness in their defence. After completion of the trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 09.11.2005, convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.40/2005 filed by the petitioners- Resham Singh and Kulwant Singh vide judgment dated 07.07.2006, hence upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial. Therefore, the present revision petition. 4. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioners do not want to challenge the findings of the conviction for the aforesaid [2025:RJ-JP:29012] (3 of 4) [CRLR-752/2006] offence against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence relates back to the year 1999 and both the petitioners have served the sentence for about 3 months, out of total sentence of one year. Learned counsel prays that while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to the petitioners be suspended to the extent of period of incarcenation already undergone by them. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is undisputed fact that the occurrence was taken place in the year 1999; learned trial Court decided the matter on 09.11.2005; learned Appellate Court decided the appeal vide order dated 07.07.2006 and this revision petition is pending for the last 19 years, therefore, the petitioners suffered the agony of trial, appeal and revision for the last more than 26 years. Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that both the petitioners have remained in custody for about 3 months, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 8. Considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and the fact that the petitioners are facing trial as well as mental agony for the last twenty six years, the present petition is liable to be partly allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:29012] (4 of 4) [CRLR-752/2006] 9. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, the sentence awarded to them is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the petitioners shall be liable to pay the fine imposed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court. It is directed that the petitioners shall deposit the fine within three months from today. It is also directed that in default of payment of fine by the petitioners, each of them shall undergo simple imprisonment of two months. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 10. Pending applications, (if any) also stand disposed of accordingly. 11. Record of the trial Court be sent back. 12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for compliance. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /5