[2025:RJ-JP:37695] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1200/2007 Dalchand S/o Brijendra Singh, R/o Ikran, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 03 /0 9 /2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 24/09/2025 1. The petitioner Dalchand has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 30.09.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No259/2002 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 3/25 of Arms Act:- one year Simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.101/2007, which was dismissed on 26.10.2007 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the complainant SHO, Police Station Chiksana, Ram Swaroop lodged a report at Police Station Chiksana alleging therein that on [2025:RJ-JP:37695] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1200/2007] 31.10.1993 he along with police personnel on receiving the information from the informer reached village ikran where he inquired from the residents and came to know that on account of a water boring, there is a tension in the village between two groups and both the groups who armed with weapon, were adamant to quarrel with each other. Thereafter, he tried to settle down the dispute, but they did not accept the request of the SHO. He also came to know that Dalchand is in possession of country made katta and cartridges. Dalchand was arrested in the field of Niranjan Jat and on his search, one country made pistol and 3 live cartridges of 12 bore were recovered from his possession. Dalchand failed to produce the license of possessing the weapon, therefore, a FIR No.175/1993 for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act came to be registered. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioner before the competent court. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner is facing trial since 1993 and has remained in [2025:RJ-JP:37695] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1200/2007] custody for around two months, therefore, he may be released for the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. The appellate court has also after proper evaluation of material available on record rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under [2025:RJ-JP:37695] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1200/2007] Section 3/25 of Arms Act as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering that there is no criminal antecedents exists and fact of protracted trial since 1993, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view, thus for the reasons discussed above, while maintaining the conviction under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by keeping the fine amount with the default imprisonment imposed by the courts below. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/