Partly allowed¶22

Darshan v. State of Hry.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CRR/866/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Darshan Vs. State of Haryana; CRR-866-2007 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 01.07.2025 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta (oral); Section 25 Arms Act; FIR No.69 dated 27.06.2001, Police Station Cheeka; SDJM Guhla conviction 08.07.2005 upheld by Sessions Judge Kaithal 03.05.2007; conviction maintained, sentence reduced to period already undergone (04 months 20 days); fine ₹500/- deposit within four weeks; petition partly accepted/disposed; none appeared for petitioner; Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. AG Haryana for State.

What did the court decide?

Petition partly accepted: conviction maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone (04 months and 20 days); unpaid fine of ₹500/- to be deposited within four weeks, failing which the complete trial-Court sentence revives. ¶22

Darshan Vs State of Hry. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act (as upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal) calls for interference by this Court. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

No ground for interference with the conviction: the Court found the conviction was recorded after proper appreciation of the evidence on record and accordingly maintained the impugned judgment of conviction.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Sentence modified: while maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court (one year rigorous imprisonment plus ₹500/- fine with default sentence) is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone (04 months and 20 days as per the custody certificate), the offence having taken place wayback in 2001, i.e. 24 years back.

¶22

Key takeaways

Condition attached to the modified sentence: the fine of ₹500/-, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the petitioner will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR-866-2007 (O&M) — Petitioner Darshan, convicted under S.25 Arms Act (FIR No.69 dt.27.06.2001, PS Cheeka; pistol with two live cartridges without permit/licence) vide trial Court judgment dt.08.07.2005, affirmed by Sessions Judge, Kaithal dt.03.05.2007 — conviction maintained, no interference warranted as it was recorded after proper appreciation of evidence; however, sentence of one year RI plus ₹500/- fine (default 15 days SI) modified to the period already undergone (04 months and 20 days), the offence being 24 years old; unpaid fine to be deposited within four weeks, failing which the complete trial-Court sentence revives — petition partly allowed and disposed of (Deepak Gupta, J., oral).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

203

¶4

CRR-866-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 01.07.2025

¶5

Darshan …..Pe��oner

Vs.

State of Haryana

.….Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present:None for the pe��oner.

¶11

Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. AG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Pe��oner Darshan was tried by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla in a case arising out of FIR No.69 dated 27.06.2001 under Sec�on 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Sta�on Cheeka as he was found in possession of one pistol along with two live cartridges without any permit and licence. A�er trial, the pe��oner was convicted under Sec�on 25 of Arms Act vide judgment dated 08.07.2005 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 15 days simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. On appeal, the judgment of convic�on and order of sentence were upheld by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 03.05.2007.

¶15

Against the abovesaid convic�on and sentence, this pe��on was filed.

¶16

Today nobody is appearing on behalf of the pe��oner. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convic�on has been recorded a�er proper apprecia�on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the NEETIKA TUTEJA2025.07.01 18:11 impugned judgment of convic�on and as such, the same is hereby I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRR-866-2007 (O&M)

¶18

maintained.

¶19

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is no�ced that pe��oner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of 15 days simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

¶20

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that pe��oner has already undergone total custody sentence of 04 months and 20 days. Offence had taken place wayback in 2001 i.e. 24 years back.

¶21

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus�ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the pe��oner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

¶22

Consequently, the present pe��on is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic�on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the pe��oner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶23

However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks’ from today, failing which the pe��oner will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

¶24

Disposed of.

¶25

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶26

July 01, 2025

¶27

Nee�ka Tuteja

¶28

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶29

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.01 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Darshan v. State of Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan v. State of Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Dhakad and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ravina and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amarjeet Kaur Minor through Sukhwinder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

(O&M) Manohar Lal Aggarwal Vs Anita Sood and Ors.

Uhbvnl and Others Vs Ram Niwas

Des Raj Vs State of Pb.