The prosecution's failure to prove seizure of arms and lack of valid sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act results in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 6.10.2018 passed by learned Fast Track Court No. 1, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Criminal Appeal No. 091 of 2011 whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25(1-B)(a) and 26(1) of the ARMS ACT was upheld but sentence was modified.

2. The factual background of the case is that on written report of Officer-in-Charge, Asthawan Police Station, Nalanda, Asthawan P.S. Case No. 62 of 2004 was registered on 17.03.2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26(ii) of the ARMS ACT against the sole accused Saryug Singh who is petitioner herein.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and, thereafter, after taking cognizance, charge was framed and trial was conducted.

4. During trial, altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution which are as follows:-

(i) P.W.-1 - Kisun Chaudhari

(ii) P.W.-2 - Visheshwar Paswan

(iii) P.W.-3 - Pramod Kumar Rai/informant

(iv) P.W.-4 - Kameshwar Singh, ASI

(v) P.W.- 5 - Sri Kant Singh, Seargent Major

5. The following documents and materials were also exhibited by the prosecution during trial.

(i) Ext. - 1 - Seizure list dated 17.02.2006

(ii) Ext. - 2 - Self recorded statement of the informant for lodging the FIR

(iii) Ext. - 3 - Formal F.I.R.

(iv) Ext. - 4 - Signature of the Seargent Major on mechanical report regarding the arms.

(v) Ext. - 4/1 - Mechanical report of seized arms.

(vi) Ext. - 5 - Forwarding letter sent by SHO Asthawan Police Station for sanction.

(vii) Ext. - 6 - Sanction order for launching prosecution.

(vii) Ext. - 7 - Carbon copy of the forwarding letter of SHO for remanding the accused.

(viii) Ext. - 8 - Carbon copy of application given by SHO for taking permission to get the examination of seized material.

(ix) Ext. - 9 - Order sheet dated 7.4.2004.

(x) Material Ext. -I - Arms and cartridges

(xi) Material Ext. - II - Fired empty cartridge.

(xii) Material Ext.-III - Four live cartridges to III/3.

6. The petitioner has also examined one Hussain Ahmad as defence witness No. 1.

7. After hearing the parties and perusal of evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26(i) of the ARMS ACT and sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 25(1-B)(a) of ARMS ACT and simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 26(i) of the ARMS ACT .

8. Being aggrieved by learned Trial Court judgment and conviction, the convict preferred Criminal Appeal bearing No. 91 of 2011 whereby learned Appellate Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence of imprisonment by reducing it to the period undergone. However, there was no alteration made in the fine imposed on the petitioner by learned Trial Court.

9. Being aggrieved by the impugned Appellate judgment, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

10. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court are not sustainable. Both the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously passed judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

12. To substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that seizure of the Arms and cartri