JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

THE APPEAL

2. Appellant lays a challenge to the final judgment and order dated 26th June, 2025,¹[impugned judgment] of the High Court of Judicature at Patna,²[High Court], dismissing his petition for criminal revision,³[Criminal Revision No. 1052 of 2024]. While so dismissing, the High Court affirmed the judgment and order dated 13th August, 2024 of the Sessions Judge, Khagaria,⁴[appellate court] of dismissal of the appellant’s appeal,⁵[Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2013], which in turn, had affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th July, 2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khagaria,⁶[trial magistrate], in the trial,⁷[T.R. No. 1525/2013].

3. The trial magistrate convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act, 1959,⁸[Arms Act] and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each offence, with a default stipulation of further rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, may be summarised as follows:

4.1. The prosecution case was set in motion in the wee hours of 10th August, 2010, when the Station House Officer,⁹[P.W.6 (Sanjeev Kumar, SHO Mufassil Police Station)], upon receiving secret information that certain criminals were gathering in Nanhku Mandal Tola, constituted a raiding party,¹⁰[Comprising P.W.1 (Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Jhankar), P.W.2 (Assistant Sub-Inspector Ramanuj Prasad Singh), P.W.5 (Ajay Kumar, SHO Mansi Police Station), P.W.7 (Sub-Inspector Balram Lal Dev (also the Investigating Officer)), and other armed forces/police personnel] and proceeded towards the location.

4.2. The raiding party reached Nanhku Mandal Tola and proceeded to the dwelling of one Asharfi Yadav, and found the appellant sleeping on a raised platform outside it.

4.3. The raiding party cordoned off the premises. Upon being roused, the appellant attempted to flee but was apprehended. On interrogation, the apprehended person identified himself as the appellant herein.

4.4. The bedding on which the appellant was sleeping was searched. Thereupon, 1 (one) regular .315 bore country-made rifle and a red-coloured bindoliya (bandolier) fitted with a chain containing 16 (sixteen) live cartridges of .315 bore were recovered from beneath the bedding. As the appellant failed to produce a valid license or documents for the recovered firearm and ammunition, the items were seized at the spot. No independent witnesses from the locality could be secured at the odd hours, and consequently, two members of the raiding party, viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were designated as seizure witnesses. A formal search-cum-seizure list was prepared on the spot, which was duly signed by the appellant.

4.5. Based thereon, an FIR,¹¹[FIR No. 330 of 2010] came to be registered against the appellant on the same day, for the offences under sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act.

4.6. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet, and the trial magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Charges were framed against the appellant on 24th February, 2011, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.7. Prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses, all of whom were police personnel, and led material documentary evidence, including the Arms and Ammunition Examination Report prepared by P.W.4 (Sudhir Sinha, Sergeant Major). The defence examined 1 (one) witness, D.W.1 (Ratan Yadav), who deposed to a long-standing land dispute between the appellant and Asharfi Yadav, and further alleged that the police first apprehended Asharfi Yadav, released him after accepting a bribe, and substituted the appellant instead as the offender. This testimony, however, was discredited in cross-examination.

4.8. The trial magistrate, vide judgment and order dated 30th July, 2013