JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the State.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the legality, proprietory and correctness of the Judgment dated 2nd June, 2014, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 60/2013, by Learned Additional Sessions–II, Sahebganj whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The appeal was filed against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj in connection with Sahebganj (M) P.S. Case No. 49/2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 135/2001 (T.R. No. 52/2013) registered U/s 25 (1-b)(a) & 26 of the Arms Act.

3. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b) A of the Arms Act and further to undergo R.I. of 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fines, he was further ordered to undergo S.I. for one month and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Arguments of the petitioner

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and illegal and are fit to be set-aside on the following grounds:

(a) The country made pistol was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather it was recovered from a Machan covered by Goyatha (cow dung cakes) and accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner was found in possession of the alleged arms.

(b) The seizure list witnesses have not supported the prosecution case to the extent that they have stated that they had put their signatures in blank paper in police station.

(c) The informant of the case has not been examined, although the reason for non-examination has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that he had expired.

5. The learned counsel further submitted the sergeant major was not examined as a witness before the learned trial court and the investigating officer has proved the report with regard to the arms. The learned counsel specifically referred to the statement made by the investigating officer before the learned trial court as recorded in the learned trial court’s judgment that the investigating officer identified the signature of the sergeant major on the test report of the arms and accepted that the pin was absent from the hammer and when the pin will be set, the pistol will be in working condition and dangerous to life.

6. He submitted that the report itself suggests that the arm was not in working condition and accordingly, the petitioner could not have been convicted for illegal possession of arms. He submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the petitioner is fit to be acquitted from the case.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

7. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that concurrent finding of facts has been recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating the evidences on record and the arguments of the petitioner have already been considered by the learned courts below. She submitted that merely because the pin was not found, it does not mean that the arm was of no use as the same could be brought immediately in a working condition by a small part of the weapon. She further submitted that this argument has been considered by the learned courts below and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments. She also submitted that non-examination of the informant of the case or sergeant major has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner in any manner and accordingly, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on this count.

8. So far as the possession of the arm is concerned, the learned A.P.P. submitted that one country made pistol was recovered which was kept in concealed state beneath a machan c