ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Birendra Burman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 09.12.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 2012 whereby the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed. The petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 25(1-B) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence u/s 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence u/s. 26 of the Arms Act. It has been directed that in default of payment of fine, the petitioner has to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The trial court judgment was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Latehar in G.R Case No. 442 of 2009/Trial No. 273 of 2012 arising out of Manika P.S Case No. 47 of 2009.

Submissions of the petitioner

4. It is submitted that the judgment of trial court as well as appellate court are perverse and the errors are apparent on the record. It is submitted that the followings are such perversity and errors:

(i) In Para 12 of the trial court judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has considered a Promissory Note in relation to the seized motorcycle issued by one Krishna Prasad Yadav in favor of the purchaser Sarju Ram on 13.4.2009 mentioning therein that he sold the vehicle to Sarju Ram who is the father of the petitioner.

It is submitted that a promissory note is not a public document and the same was required to be proved for admitting the same in evidence. The alleged promissory note has neither been proved, nor marked as an exhibit in the case. So, the trial court was fully unjustified in taking into consideration the contents of the promissory note as evidence against the petitioner. It is also submitted that no question was asked from the petitioner regarding promissory note while examining u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The I.O. (PW-11) has also not whispered anything regarding promissory note in his evidence.

I.O. (PW-11) has clearly admitted in para-6 of his evidence that the vehicle in question belongs to one Raj Kumar Tiwari of Village Rakikala. No document was brought on record by prosecution to show that either the father of the petitioner or the petitioner had purchased the vehicle in question from the Raj Kumar Tiwari, who was the real owner of the vehicle.

(ii) In para-27 of the judgment of the appellate court it has been mentioned that PW-12, Shankar Dubey, independent witness has supported to the extent that double barrel country made pistol (gun) and live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused Rajendra Ram. It is submitted that PW-12 Shankar Dubey has stated in his evidence that he knows Rajendra Ram and has heard that from the possession of Rajendra Ram pistol was recovered. In para-2 of his evidence he has stated that the article was not recovered in his presence.

Similarly, in para-28 of the judgment of appellate court, the learned Sessions Judge has held that PW-13 Bartu Oraon has also supported to the extent that Rajendra Ram was apprehended alongwith motorcycle and incriminating article i.e. double barrel country made pistol (gun) and live cartridges recovered and this witness has also identified Rajendra Ram present in the doc of the court. It is submitted that PW-13 is a hearsay witness. He has clearly stated that at the time of occurrence he was in his house and came to know that Rajendra Ram was apprehended while roaming and a pistol was recovered from a bag.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two aspects of this case:-

(i) The first aspect is as to whether the alleged double barrel country made pistol and live cartridges were recovered from the poss