JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The instant appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 30.07.2008, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Arambagh, Hooghly in Sessions Trial Case No. 11 of 007 and thereby convicting the appellant under Section 25 (1)(B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. A complaint filed by Akhil Chandra Bhowmick S.I. of Police Arambagh P.S. dated 08.09.2002 before the Officer-in-Charge Arambagh P.S. precisely stated that on 8th Day of September, 2002 at 10:40 hours the appellant along with five or more other persons possessing fire arms were whispering to one another concealing their presence from the public for committing dacoity under a tree behind Girls College, Arambagh, on the side of river embankment of Dwarakeshwar. Receiving such information over telephone the police reached the spot. At the sight of the police the assembled five people escaped. After being chased, one out of five persons could be apprehended by the police in front of the C.T. Nursing Home, Arambagh and on interrogation his identity to be Sk. Giasuddin was revealed. On search of his body a concealed Country made pipe gun loaded with one round ammunition from the right side of the waist beneath his shirt was recovered. Another Country made pipe gun loaded with one round ammunition along with some gold and silver ornaments, a cash of Rs. 1054, clothings, one torch, an umbrella etc. were further recovered from the bag carried by him on his shoulder. The aforesaid articles were seized under a seizure list duly signed by the witnesses to the seizure. The appellant, Sk. Giasuddin was subsequently arrested. Returning to the police station a written complaint was lodged against the appellant and the persons whose names were disclosed by him.

3. Based on the complaint, Arambagh P.S. Case No. 117/2002 against the accused persons investigation was initiated under Sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 35 of the Arms Act which culminated in submission of charge sheet against the accused persons.

4. Charges were framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case cited 7 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. The Learned Advocate Mr. Subhasis Pachhal for the appellant argued the Learned Trial Court did not consider the contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.

The framing of charge and the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not in accordance to law. The appellant was falsely implicated and did not glean the benefit of the provision enumerated in Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The seized fire arms produced before the Court were not affixed with the label to prove its seizure. Proper sanction was not proved to have been obtained from the District Magistrate for prosecution under the Arms Act. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, PW-7 was contrary to each other, worthy to be discredited. No independent witness was cited by the prosecution. There were inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the time of the incident and the complaint to have been lodged. The Learned Trial Court based on false notion indicted the appellant and the appeal shall be allowed.

7. The Learned Advocate Ms. Faria Hossain for the State submitted the appellant was apprehended and the fire arms were recovered from his possession which were proved to have been illegally possessed by him. The prosecution has been successful to prove its case and the appeal shall be dismissed.

8. A circumspection of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnes