The prosecution failed to prove the charge of illegal possession of firearms due to inconsistencies in evidence, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

The instant revision is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2024 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad whereby and whereunder the First Appeallate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jehanabad in G.R. No.774/2023, Trial No.1266/2024, arising out of Pali P.S. Case No.85/2023 convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)a and imprisonment of two years with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Arms Act. It was directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrent.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Balvir Kumar Singh, SHO, Pali Police Station was conducting evening patrolling duty on 06.07.2013 at about 05:15 p.m. with the members of the force attached to the police station. At about 5:40 p.m., when they reached near Serthu village, the SHO received a secret information that one Upendra Yadav @ Barhu Yadav was carrying illegal fire arms to commit some offence in or around the government cabin constructed for irrigation on his land in village-Golakhpur. The SHO passed on the said information to his senior officers and at about 6:30 p.m. reached near the said cabin situated on the eastern side of village- Golakhpur. Seeing the police party, a man started to flee away. The police party alongwith the Chowkidar of the locality conducted search inside the cabin and recovered one black colour loaded country made pistol and a live cartridge of .315 bore from the waist of the person, who was eventually apprehended. On being asked he disclosed his name as Upendra Yadav @ Barhu Yadav, police seized the country made pistol and live cartridges at the spot in presence of Chowkidars and arrested the accused.

3. The S.H.O. Pali Police Station lodged a suo-moto complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which Pali Police Station Case No.85 of 2023 under Section 25(1-B)a/26 of the Arms Act was registered. Police took-up the case for investigation and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under the above-mentioned penal provisions of the Arms Act.

4. The accused/petitioner duly appeared to face trial, charge was framed against the accused and when it was read over and explained to him he pleaded not guilty. During trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses. They are PW-1 Balvir Kumar Singh (informant), PW-2 Suresh Prasad, PW-3 Chandan Kumar Shah, PW-4 Bikash Kumar Biswas, PW-5 Manoj Kumar Prasad, PW-6 Rakesh Kumar and PW-7 Manoj Kumar Ram. All the witnesses are police personnel, PW-7 is the expert, who submitted his report regarding the work ability of the fire arm and live cartridges.

5. On the basis of the evidence on record, both the Trial Court as well as the Court of Appeal held the accused guilty for committing offence under Section 25(1-B)a/26 of the Arms Act and convicted and sentence him accordingly. 6. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner is in jail custody for about two years.

7. Secondly, the Trial Court did not consider material contradictions involved in the case and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on the basis of contradictory and inadmissible evidence. In support of his contention, he first refers to Exhibit-P2, which is the seizure list.

8. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner taking me to paragraph No.3 of the seizure list that the fire arm and live cartridges were recovered from the land of the petitioner beside a cabin ¼xzke&xksy[kiqj] Fkkuk&ikyh] ftyk&tgkukckn fLFkr vfHk;qDr ds [ksr ds dsfcu ds ikl ls½. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petit