Point of Law: Manufacture, sale of prohibited arms and ammunition - Conviction confirmed - As per Section 3(1) no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of Arms Act and Rules made thereunder.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By this petition the petitioners Amir @ Saleem, Sonu @ Zakir and Shahjad @ Abid seek setting aside of the judgment dated 6th November, 2019 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment of the learned CMM dated 31st January, 2019 convicting the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 5th February, 2019 directing them to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/ each.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the material witness of the prosecution Inspector Sunil Kumar to whom the information was passed and on whose directions the raiding team was constituted was not examined before the Court. The sanction granted by the DCP concerned is without application of mind for the reason pistol allegedly recovered from the petitioner was not placed before the sanctioning authority. No public witness was joined at the time of apprehension of the petitioners. No efforts were made by the investigating agency to trace the source of arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from the petitioners. There are glaring discrepancies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that no case was made out before the learned CMM for awarding the maximum sentence imprisonment for a period of three years.

3. Learned APP for the State has taken this Court to the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and contends that there is no error therein and no case for reduction of the sentence is also made out. The sanction was granted by the competent authority after going through all the material documents and the exhibits are not required to be sent to the sanctioning authority for grant of sanction.

4. Case of the prosecution based on the statement of the witnesses is that on 23rd March, 2017 upon receipt of secret information, arrival of one Saleem @ Amit along with his associate, who is an accomplice of gangster Nasir, loged in jail was received; as per which Saleem @ Amir along with associates was to come from East Azad Nagar along with illegal arms. Information in this regard was given to Insp. Sunil Kumar, the senior officer and a raiding team was constituted comprising of SI Neeraj, ASI Vikal, ASI Rakesh Kumar, ASI Surender Pal etc. which team along with secret informer reached East Azad Nagar in three separate vehicles. Passerbys were requested to join the investigation, however none cooperated. On reaching H. No. A-53, one Masood Hasan R/o Top floor of the same building was present. He was also requested to join the raiding team, however he also refused citing his ill health and age. In the meantime, three persons got down from the stairs of the building and one of them was identified as Saleem @ Amir by the informer. They tried to flee away from the spot but were apprehended by the raiding team. The three persons coming down disclosed their names as Saleem @ Amir, Sonu @ Zakir and Shahjad @ Abid.

5. On the personal search of Saleem @ Amir one pistol loaded with two live cartridges; Sonu @ Zakir with one pistol and three live cartridges and Shahjad @ Abid with one pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. The sketches of pistols and cartridges recovered were prepared and they were seized vide the seizure memo. Rukka was sent from the spot on which FIR No. 42/2017 under Section 25 Arms Act was registered at PS Crime Branch.

6. Disclosure statements of the accused were recorded and the case property was deposited in the malkhana from where it was sent to FSL. As per the FSL report, the recovered articles were arms and ammunitions as defined under the Arms Act and witnesses who appeared in the witness box supported the case of the prosecution and nothing material could be elicited in their cross-examination.

7. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that public witnesses were not associated and h