In criminal revision, Patna High Court affirmed conviction under Arms Act but reduced sentence to time already undergone considering custody period.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the Petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.687 of 2015
Arising out of P.S. Case No. -100 Year- 2006 Thana – Muzaffarpur Sadar District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================== Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Tripathi @ Bhairav Nath Tripathi @ Master Saheb Son of Jagat Narayan Tripathi Resident of Village - Ahiyapur, Police Station - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent/s: Mr. APP.
======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 03-02-2016
The Petitioner seeks revision of the judgment of conviction dated 20.06.2015 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2014, by which he has affirmed the judgment dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur (East) in Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 100 of 2006 (Tr. No. 1742 of 2013), by which he has convicted the Petitioner under Sections 25(1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two and half years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under each count.
Supplementary-Affidavit has been filed stating therein that the Petitioner has remained in custody for eight months in the year 2006 and thereafter he is custody since 12.12.2014 i.e. almost two years, five months and some days.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.687 of 2015 dt.03-02-2016
2
Having gone through the judgment of conviction, I
do not find any perversity in the same.
However, considering the period of custody mentioned in the Supplementary-Affidavit, the sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by the Petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands dismissed.
(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Vikash/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sentence should be reduced considering period of custody
Whether conviction order shows perversity
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Tripathi @ Bhairav Nath Tripathi @ Master Saheb
State of Bihar
Anjana Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
