Maiyadin v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Held that conviction under Section 7/25 of Arms Act is to be maintained but sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused-revisionist considering his age and having undergone three and a half months of imprisonment.
What did the court decide?
Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused.
What the court decided
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1588 of 1991
Revisionist :- Maiyadin Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- P.V. Singh,B.S.Shrinet,Ramanuj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
- Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
- This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.1991 passed by Sri S.S.Gupta, Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1991, which was filed against the judgements and orders dated 10.06.1991 and 12.06.1991 convicting the revisionist under Section 7/25 Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year.
- Counsel for the revisionist at the very outset stated that he is not assailing judgment of the Courts below on merits, but is seeking mercy stating that accused revisionist has already undergone about three and half months sentence and taking into account the advance age of revisionist, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone.
- Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, I am inclined to reduce sentence of imprisonment under Section 7/25 Arms Act to the period already undergone.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of imprisonment awarded for conviction under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act should be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused considering his age.
Whether the conviction under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act should be maintained while modifying the sentence.
What is the appropriate sentence when the accused has already undergone a portion of the term awarded by the trial court.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Maiyadin
- respondent
State
Coram
Sudhir Agarwal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/1588/1991
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court