1. This Revision Application is filed by the applicant, challenging the judgment and order dated 10.2.2000 passed in Criminal Case No.64 of 1993 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chotila, whereby the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2000/, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 25(1b) (a) of the Arms Act. The said judgment and order has been challenged by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, by way of Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2000. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10.2.2000 passed in Criminal Case No.64 of 1993 vide judgment and order dated 28.2.2005.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Khan for the applicant submitted the sentence learned Magistrate is unjust, improper and contrary to the facts of the case. As per his submission, both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. He also submitted that when the sanction is defective then present Revision Application is required to be allowed. He also submitted that as per the charge made against the present applicant, the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate and in turn confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, is not just and proper and against the provisions of law.
3. Learned APP Mr. Jani for the State submitted that learned Magistrate has imposed lesser punishment upon the applicant. He read the provisions of Arms Act. He relied upon the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kanubhai Gokaldas Shah reported in GLR 1996(3) 858 and submitted that the matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned learned Magistrate for fresh consideration.
4. Heard the parties and perused the papers. I have also perused the case of State of Gujarat (Supra), wherein the learned Magistrate sentenced the accused No.2 till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1000/, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7(V) and 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. I have read the provisions of the Arms Act so far as quantum of punishment is concerned for the alleged offence. It is true that the learned Magistrate imposed lesser punishment upon the applicant and therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned learned Magistrate. The said judgment and order of the learned Magistrate has been challenged by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has also confirmed the same. This Revision is not decided on merit.
5. In view of the above, this Revision Application is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.2.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chotila in Criminal Case No.64 of 1993, which is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendrnanagar by his judgment and order dated 28.2.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2000 are hereby quashed and set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The learned Principal District Judge, Surendranagar, is directed to notify the said Criminal Case before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, with a direction to decide the said case within a period of five (5) months from the date of receipt of the writ of this judgment. R & P, if received, be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas