Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Birajit Sinha vs The State Of Tripura on 3 November, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 8399/2015
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07/09/2015
IN CRLAP NO. 23/2013 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT
AGARTHALA)
BIRAJIT SINHA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TRIPURA RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 03/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Azra Rehman, Adv.
Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Adv.
Ms. Roshni W. Anand, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kotiyal, Adv.
Mr. Kyuphamliu V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Jain Singh, Adv.
Ms. Alisha Panda, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Mohan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.
Ms. Varsha Poddar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
Signature Not Verified [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] Digitally signed by COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Vinod Lakhina Date: 2015.11.04 16:38:11 IST Reason:
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.8399/2015] BIRAJIT SINHA ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF TRIPURA ...RESPONDENT ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is against the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the sentence of three months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court which has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. Shri Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused appellant has urged that the facts alleged 2 by the prosecution even if taken to be proved i.e. that the accused appellant was in possession of 17 cartridges as against permissible limit of 12 cartridges cannot be held to have committed the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 inasmuch as the revolver was a licensed one and so was the ammunition. The above facts, according to the learned cousel, would attract Section 3 of the Arms Act which would require sanction by the District Magistrate which was not obtained/granted in the instant case. It is on the aforesaid basis that the conviction and the consequential sentence has been challenged. Shri Khurshid has further argued that in the event the conviction of the accused appellant is to be maintained, the Court may take a lenient view of the matter and appropriately reduce the sentence. 3
5. Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the State of Tripura has refuted the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused appellant and by pointing out to the provisions of Sections 3 and 30 of the Arms Act has submitted that while Section 3 of the Arms Act deals with a situation where a firearm and ammunition is carried without any licence, Section 30 takes care of an offence committed by a license holder. Learned counsel for the State, therefore, submits that this Court will have no occasion to interfere with the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed on the accused appellant. It is also submitted that the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment is neither excessive nor disproportionate and therefore would not require any interference as urged on behalf of the appellant.
4
6. We have considered the submissions advanced. In the teeth of the language of Sections 3 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 it will be difficult to hold that the possession of 17 cartridges by the appellant as against the permissible limit of 12 cartridges would attract Section 3 and not Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. In the present case, not only the firearm i.e. the revolver but also the ammunition permitted to be carried was regulated by the terms of the license that the accused appellant was granted. We, therefore, can find no fault with the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 30 of the Arms Act as affirmed by the High Court.
7. Coming to the question of sentence we have taken into account the medical reports of the appellant which would go to show that he is suffering from Malignancy 5 (Stage IV A) and has undergone two surgical procedures. There is no minimum sentence contemplated by Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. As already noticed, the maximum sentence is a period of six months. The appellant has no previous criminal record and, in fact, is a sitting Member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly. He has been acquitted of the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC in connection with which the use of the firearm was alleged. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court should be altered to one of imprisonment for a period of one month (30 days). The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of set off of the period of custody that he may have suffered during investigation 6 under the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On completion of the remaining period of sentence imposed by the present order the appellant is directed to be set at liberty.
8. The appeal shall stand partly allowed in the above terms. The order of the High Court is modified to the above extent.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 03, 2015