STATE OF M.P. v. AYUB KHAN INSC 479

Name Of the Case: State of M.P. v Ayub Khan Facts: The proliferation of arms and ammunition, whether licensed or not, in the country disrupts the social order and development, vitiates the law and order situation, and directly contributes towards the lethality of violent acts which need to be curbed. We are sorry to note that the law enforcing agencies, and to a certain extent the courts in the country, always treat crimes lightly without noticing the havoc they can create to the ordinary peace-loving citizens of this country and the national security and the integrity and the unity of this nation.

Issue: Whether the accused's sentence for the offense under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act was appropriate, considering the minimum mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute.

Holding: The Court allows the appeal, sets aside the order of sentence passed by the High Court as well as the courts below, and orders that the respondent-accused has to undergo a minimum period of three years' sentence as prescribed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and also pay a fine of Rs 5000, in default of which the accused shall undergo another three months' simple imprisonment.

Rationale: The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for which a minimum mandatory sentence of not less than three years was prescribed. Once the accused was found guilty for the offence, he was required to undergo the minimum mandatory sentence. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate overlooked this vital fact and awarded only one year's rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs 100. This decision was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The High Court further reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only seven days. The Court finds that this reduction of sentence was inappropriate in a case where the accused should have undergone a minimum sentence of three years and a fine under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.