A. M. Badar, J. – By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused, Manoj Yadav is challenging the Judgment and order dated 10.01.2017 and 11.01.2017 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 642 of 2013 arising out of Muffassil P.S. Case No. 153 of 2013, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a), 25(1-B) and 26(2) of the Arms Act, 1959. For the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 28(1-B) of the Arms Act, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as “an accused”.

2. Facts leading to the prosecution of the accused projected from the police report can be summarized thus: –

A. The incident in question took place on 16.03.2013. On that day, Police Officers had gathered at the Police Club for the purpose of participation in the election of the Police Association. First Informant P.W. 1, Shashi Kant Sinha was also present there. He received secret information that a small gun factory is being operated at Adarsh Gram Tikarampur Mathar Ghat. Hence by forming a team of police officers, he left for effecting search and seizure. At about 1 P.M. of 16.06.2013, the police could trace out the place where the firearms were being manufactured. The accused was found to be operating the drill machine. He came to be apprehended on the spot of the incident itself which was in the middle of the highted grass near village Tikarampur Mathar Ghat. That spot so also the person of the accused came to be searched in presence of Puch witnesses taken from the police party itself namely P.W. 2 Bishwa Bandhu Kumar, the In-charge of outpost of Purabsarai, P.W. 3 Anil Kumar, Incharge of Basudeopur outpost. From person of the accused, one country made pistol came to be seized. From the spot of the incident one drill machine, one base machine, five empty cartridges, few hexa blades, hammer, piece of iron plate so also semi manufactured hammer and body of the pistol came to be seized under the seizure memo. The accused failed to furnish necessary licence issued under the Arms Act. Accordingly, P.W. 1 Shashi Kant Sinha, Sub-Inspector lodged the FIR with Muffassil Police Station which resulted in registration of Crime No. 153 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-b)AC and 26(ii) of the Arms Act came to be registered against the accused.

B. Routine investigation followed. Investigating Officer P.W. 7, Mukesh Kumar Paswan recorded the statement of witnesses, inspected the spot of the incident, sent the seized articles for examination and report of the Ballistic Expert and on completion of investigation, the accused came to be charge sheeted.

C. The learned trial court was pleased to frame the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1-B) and 26(ii) of the Arms Act against the accused with an accusation that he was found to be possessing the prohibited arms and was found to be manufacturing the prohibited arms etc. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

D. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses. First Informant Shashi Kant Singh, the Police Sub-Inspector who headed the raiding party is examined as