Mandatory minimum sentence under the Arms Act cannot be reduced below the statutory floor despite leniency or time already served.

A mandatory minimum sentence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 cannot be reduced below three years for possession of arms and ammunition in contravention of the statute. The text emphasises that the legislative intent is to fix a minimum punishment, so a sentencing court cannot substitute a lesser term on grounds of leniency or the period already undergone. Any sentence below the statutory minimum is contrary to the express provision and is unsustainable; the minimum sentence of three years with fine must be imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentence imposed for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 could be reduced below the statutory minimum of three years.

Analysis: The offence involved possession of arms and ammunition in contravention of the Arms Act. The statute prescribed a minimum sentence of not less than three years and the legislative intent was to impose a mandatory minimum punishment for such offences. The courts below had reduced the sentence to one year and then to the period already undergone, which was only seven days, despite the statutory mandate. The Court held that such reduction was contrary to the express terms of the provision and ignored the mandatory minimum punishment fixed by law.

Conclusion: The sentence below the statutory minimum was unsustainable and had to be replaced by the minimum sentence of three years with fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence for a criminal offence, the sentencing court cannot reduce the punishment below that minimum on grounds of leniency or time already undergone.

---