2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the keeping the un-prohibited arm.

3. The prosecution case, as alleged by the informant in his self statement that on secret information by the members of a team of Special Task Force, Bihar, that in village Rampur Khaira, one Pramod Rai has kept and concealed illegal arm and he recorded a sanha no. 298 and for verification of sanha report, the informant, along with Sanjay Kumar Gaur, Vijay Kumar Singh, armed force and Special Task Force team proceeded to village Rampur Khairi and reached at about 02.30 a.m. and surrounded the house of Pramod Rai and in presence of two independent witnesses, Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Pravesh Rai raided the house of Pramod Rai and following the norms of search and seizure, one person was found sleeping in a room and when the person got up he tried to fleeing away, was apprehended by police party and under his bed a black coloured arms with magazine and one empty magazine were seized. The arms, seized, identified as AK 56 and the magazine was found to be empty and the person disclosed his name as Pramod Rai. On demand, he could not produce any paper with regard to the fire arm and so recovered arm was seized and seizure list was duly prepared before the two independent witnesses and a copy of the seizure list was handed over to the accused with his signature and a case under Sections 25(1-A) and 26(II) of the Arms Act.

4. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet on which the cognizance was taken, the case committed to the Court of sessions on 13.05.2013 and after commitment, the charge was framed on 01.06.2013 and trial proceeded.

5. During the trial ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution and number of documentary evidence proved, which have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 9 and the material exhibit in the case diary are material Exhibit 1, AK 56 rifle one number, material Exhibit 2 magazine one empty, material Exhibit 3, magazine one empty.

6. After taking into consideration the documentary and oral evidences, adduced in the case, the trial Court convicted the appellant, as mentioned above, taking into consideration the fact that the arm was seized from the possession of the appellant for which the witnesses, including independent witnesses, supported the prosecution case and the fact that the Sergeant Major has given a detail about the seized arms to be effective.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, challenged the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case in collusion wit the independent witnesses and the police. It has been submitted that the two witnesses, who are said to be independent witnesses, have themselves accepted that they were in inimical terms with the accused, hence, reliance on those witnesses is not acceptable. It has, further, been contended that though report of the Sergeant Major, which has been marked as Exhibit 4 does not mention that the arm which was seized and examined by the Sergeant Major was a prohibited arm and in the report there is nothing to suggest which comes under the definition of prohibited arms, hence, it is contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act is not sustainable in view of the fact that the arm, seized, has not been established to be prohibited arm. It has, further, been contended that the appellant is in jail since 17.10.2012.

8. The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that there is specific allegation in the report that the weapon, seized, was AK 56, which is of Chinese make and, hence, it can well be presumed that the arm is a prohibited arm and, further, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt