1 2025:CGHC:24718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 663 of 2022 Prakash Khutare S/o Shri Bhagatram Khutare, aged about 47 years R/o Village Telinsatti, Police Station Arjuni Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.15/2020, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 1392/2018 by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the learned trial KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional RI for 01 month. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.08.2018, while Sub Inspector Samual Nag of Police Station, Arjuni along with his staff going towards polling booth, he received an information that accused Prakash Khutare was waiving a sword near Sati Mandir in village Telinsatti, which is a public place. The police came to the place of incident and recovered sword from the accused/applicant and registered an offence under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act against him. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari for offence punishable under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 30.01.2020 convicted the applicant for punishable under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned in preceding paragraph of this order. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the applicant has filed Criminal Appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Damtari. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari by the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2022 affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari. Hence, this criminal revision. 3 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the applicant has been convicted under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, but the said offence has been committed by the applicant as he was suffering from mental disorder (medical documents have been annexed along with this petition). He would further submitted that due to mental disorder, the applicant was only wielding the sword in the public place, he has neither caused any injury nor has threatened anybody. He would also submit that the applicant has already undergone 41 days of jail sentence as the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case 1392/2018 and bail was granted to him by this Court only on 06.07.2022. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount which shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence. 7. On a pointed query being made from learned counsel for the applicant whether any such defence has been taken by the applicant before the trial Court, he states that no such defence was taken and he has filed medical documents in the present revision petition as Annexure-A/3. The said documents cannot be considered by this Court and the applicant was said to have been armed with sword and was wielding it in the air at a public place. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Shukal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the Courts 4 below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. She further submits that the minimum sentence which can be awarded for the offence is question is one year rigorous imprisonment subject to the condition that the sentence may be reduced with the cogent reason. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional RI for 01 month. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing applicant for offence under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 11. Now considering the question of sentence. As the applicant facing criminal trial since 2018 and thereafter more than 06 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant and further considering that the applicant has already undergone 41 days of 5 jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to send the applicant again in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for three years under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. 41 days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.25,000/- and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence. The said fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of three months from today before the concerned trial Court. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, he shall further undergo R.I. for six months. Ordered accordingly. 12. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal