- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100246 OF 2022 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: KAMALAKAR S/O. BASYA JOGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ACHANALLI BISALKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UK KARWAR-581401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHANDEKAR D. ANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANAVASI P.S., R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE BY THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.5016/2021 DATED 08.04.2022 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN CC NO.684/2014, BY THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SIRSI, DATED 25.02.2021, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 3 R/W. SECTION 25 (1-B) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.18 11:10:34 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Bhandekar D. Annappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.684/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default sentence of 3 months imprisonment confirmed in Crl.A.No.5016/2021. 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 4. Accused being in custody in respect of another criminal case was tried in S.C.No.25/2013. At that juncture, a search was conducted in the house of the accused, and an unlicensed firearm in working condition was recovered from his house. This led to the registration of another criminal case under Crime No.03/2012. On contest, said criminal case ended in conviction, as admittedly the accused did not possess a license to possess the firearm marked at M.O.No.1, which is a single-barrel gun. 5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused has preferred an appeal. 6. The learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail in light of the appeal grounds and on re- appreciated the material evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 8. Sri.Bhandekar reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the material evidence placed on record is hardly sufficient to recording the order of conviction under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. He would further contend that alleged recovery under the panchanama by the Sub-Inspector of Sirsi Rural Police, is incorrect as on the date of the alleged recovery, accused was in judicial custody in S.C.No.25/2013. Therefore, very registration of the criminal case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, itself is incorrect and illegal and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 10. Alternatively, Sri.Bhandekar, would submit that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction for the aforesaid offences, excising the powers vested in this Court under Section 25 proviso, imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 11. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State, would support the impugned judgments. 12. He would further contend that recovery of M.O.No.1, which is a single barrel gun under the panchanama by the Police would complete the offence inasmuch as accused failed to furnish the valid license to possess the firearm before the Court. 13. Merely on the ground that the accused was in custody in some other case would not absolved the criminality in possessing M.O.No.1 by the accused and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 14. He further contended that if people like revision petitioner is shown mercy or leniency, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and indulge in similar activities which would send a wrong message to the society and thus sought for the dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material on record, panchanama under which M.O.No.1 stood recovered is established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 17. Admittedly, there was no license to possess M.O.No.1 by the accused. Only on the ground that accused was in judicial custody in S.C.No.25/2013 would not absolve the criminality in possessing M.O.No.1 by the accused in his house. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 18. All these factors have been rightly appreciated by both the courts while recording the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 19. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction as is held in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another1, this court is of the considered opinion that conviction of the accused for the offence punishable Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, needs no interference by this court. 20. This would take this Court to the next limb of the arguments namely the appropriate sentence for the aforesaid offences. 21. Sri.Bhandekar, would submit that accused was in custody in S.C.No.25/2013 for a period of 62 days and ultimately in the said case accused was acquitted. 1 (2012)9 SCC 460 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 22. Taking note of the fact that the accused is the first time offender and he has not claimed the return of the firearm, the proviso to Section 25 may be considered by this Court while exercising the discretionary powers vested in a appropriately modifying the sentence of imprisonment. 23. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, has opposed the said contention. 24. Taking note of the fact that the recovery of M.O.No.1 was taken place when accused was in judicial custody and there was no proper person to offer explanation for the recovery of the firearm in the house of the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the raising of the court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/- to be payable in three installments would meet the ends of justice. 25. Accordingly, the following order is passed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the day, till the raising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.75,000/- in three installment i.e., Rs.25,000/- each in three installments. One installment on or before 15.04.2025, second installment on or before 15.05.2025 and third installment on or before 15.06.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount and any one of the installments would automatically result in restoration of imprisonment ordered by the trial magistrate - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4605 CRL.RP No. 100246 of 2022 (iv) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 10