The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 229/2012, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 25 (1-A) of Arms Act, 1959. The substantive sentence of R.I. for five years is given and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- is also imposed. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 135 of Bombay Police Act and he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for four months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Both the substantive sentences are made to run concurrently. The appellant has been in jail since 17.1.2000. Both the sides are heard.

2. Action was taken against the appellant when police received information against him on 17.1.2010. The Crime Branch of Aurangabad had information that appellant, who was wanted in dacoity cases registered in Maharashtra State and other States, was to come within local jurisdiction of Waluj Police Station near Limbe Jalgaon. P.S.I. Sitaram Mahatre collected his staff and he went to the aforesaid spot. The members of the team of Mahatre disbursed and waited at the spot at about 1.00 hour of the night between 16.1.2010 and 17.1.2010. After some time, they noticed that the appellant had arrived there. They rushed forward and held him. On inquiry, he gave his name and it was confirmed that he was the wanted person. When personal search was taken, he was found in possession of one pistol, having four cartridges in magazine. Four separate cartridges were found in watch pocket of his pant. He was also found in possession of one knife. The appellant could not give satisfactory explanation with regard to fire arm and the cartridges. In the presence of panch witnesses, these articles came to be seized. In view of notification issued under section 31 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 at the relevant time, the provisions of Bombay Police Act were also used and the crime came to be registered for aforesaid offences on the basis of report given by P.S.I.

3. Ramakant Padwal, who was working as P.S.I. in Crime Branch was given the investigation of the case. During investigation, he recorded statements of the members of the aforesaid team. He had also accompanied the team when the action was taken by the complainant. He forwarded the fire arm and cartridges to forensic laboratory and report is given that the fire arm was in working condition and the cartridges could be fired. Padwal filed chargesheet against the appellant.

4. In the Trial Court, six witnesses including aforesaid two police officers, were examined. Some Police Constables, who had taken part in the action, were also examined and panch witnesses on the seizure panchanama were also examined. The Trial Court has believed the witnesses. The accused took the defence of total denial during trial including the statement given by him under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant who was appointed by this Court through Legal Aid, mainly submitted that all the witnesses examined against the appellant are interested witnesses and the provisions of sections 41-B, 52, 102 and 165 of Cr.P.C. are not complied with. Alternatively the learned counsel argued that the punishment is hard in comparison to the offence for which the charge has been framed and he submitted that a lenient view needs to be taken in view of nature of evidence given by the prosecution.

6. The evidence of Mahatre (PW 1) shows that he had taken action on the basis of information received by the Crime Branch, which was working in Commissioner Office, Aurangabad and he had taken panch witnesses with his team of 20 persons. He has given evidence that the accused was wanted in so many dacoity cases and so they went to the spot for arresting the accused. He has given evidence that when they noticed the accused on the spot described by the informer, they took action at about 1.30 a.m. of 17.1.2010 and the accused c