JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti in Cr. Appeal No. 07 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a read with Section 35 of the Arms Act, but set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner and others.

4. The petitioner alongwith Dhono Munda and Budhlal Munda had jointly preferred the criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in G.R. No. 287 of 2006/T.R. No. 262 of 2008 (arising out of Arki P.S. Case No. 23/2006) whereby and whereunder they were convicted for offence under Section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2½ years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for both of the offences under Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for further 6 (six) months under both the offences. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone by them during trial were directed to be set off. However, the learned trial court acquitted all the three accused persons from the charges under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned judgments submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the seizure-list witnesses are concerned, they have not supported the prosecution case, inasmuch as, P.W.-4 (Sanjay Munda) had turned hostile and P.W.-1 (Sukhram Munda) though admitted his signature on the seizure list, but stated that he had put his signature in the police station. So far as P.W.-2 (Lakhindra Nag) is concerned, he also denied the occurrence, but he proved his signatures on the seizure lists which were marked as Exhibits- 1/2 and 1/3 respectively. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel further submitted that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner may be given the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2006 and much time has elapsed since then and the petitioner has faced the rigour of the criminal case for about 15 years and as such, the sentence of the petitioner may be confined to the period already undergone by him in custody.

Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

6. Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of evidences under revisional jurisdiction. He also submitted that the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and they were also fully cross-examined by the defence. He submitted that the learned appellate court has considered the fact that due to fear, the local people do not come forward to give evidence against extremists. He also submitted that considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C.

Findings of this Court

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the impugned judgments as well as the lower court records of