JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

1. Both the criminal appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 29.8.2019 and the order of sentence dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in S.C. No. 125 of 2016, A/o Cr. Tr. No. 1150 of 2016 u/s. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 (Arms Act) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.01.2015, pursuant to the information received from sources, CID (SB) Staff, Narcotic P.S Staff and ‘G’ Branch SHQ, BSF, Aizawl conducted a joint operation in the evening of 16.01.2015 at 3:15 p.m. and recovered 1986 numbers of 5.56 mm prohibited ammunition estimated to be valued at Rs. 5,95,800/- from one taxi bearing registration No. MZ-01 C 0985 near Sairang village. The driver of the said taxi Mr. Rohmingthanga (the appellant in Crl. A. No. 46/2019) and his passenger Laldinnghaka were apprehended and the ammunition seized. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Sairang Police Station, Aizawl, Mizoram and Sairang P.S Case No. 3/2015 dated 16.1.2015 U/s 25(1-A) of the Arms Act r/w Section 34 IPC was registered. In the course of investigation, Mr. Laldinnghaka was not found to be involved in the said case and after being remanded to judicial custody, he was released. The statement of the accused Mr. Rohmingthanga revealed that the seized ammunition belonged to Mr. H. John Sangkhuma and therefore, the latter was also arrested. Five (5) numbers of the seized ammunition was sent to the FSL for examination and upon test firing and examination, they were found to be live ammunition of foreign origin. The case Investigating Officer (10) upon finding a prima facie case against both the accused persons filed the charge sheet against them before the Court below u/s. 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court framed charge against both the accused persons on 08.11.2016 under the aforementioned sections of law and to which, both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven (7) prosecution witnesses (PWs) while the defense examined three (3) defense witnesses (DWs). After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the appellants were examined u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the reply to the questions put to them was basically that of denial. They denied of having any knowledge about the seized ammunitions and their involvement with the same. Consequently, the learned Trial Court upon hearing the rival parties vide the impugned Judgment and order dated 29.08.2019 convicted both the appellants u/s. 25 of the Arms Act r/w Section 34 of the IPC and thereafter, vide order dated 04.09.2019 sentenced them both to undergo five (5) years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with a default clause. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court through the instant appeals.

4. Appearing for the appellant in Crl. A No. 46/2019, Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel submits that the appellant has challenged the decision of the learned Trial court on five (5) main grounds. They are: (i) The appellant did not have conscious possession of the alleged seized ammunitions, (ii) There were no civilian witnesses to witness the alleged seizure, (iii) The alleged ammunition was not seized from the appellant but from the passenger of the taxi driven by the appellant i.e. Sh. Laldinnghaka, (iv) It is not clear from the prosecution’s case as to whether the alleged ammunition was kept in a gunny bag or in a nylon bag and therefore, the contradiction vitiates the conviction and (v) There was delay in the examination of the alleged ammunition by the FSL.

5. Referring to the deposition of DW-2, the learned counsel submits that the appellant is a taxi driver by profession and on the day of the incident, the appellant while he was at Ramrikawn Ta