JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases.

2. Heard Mrs. Niki Sinha and Mr. Md. Hatim, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State in Cr. Rev. No. 878 of 2013 and Cr. Rev. No. 1051 of 2013 respectively.

3. Both these criminal revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 12.06.2013 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. Case No. 32 of 2000/T.R. No. 10 of 2011 [Arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 13/2000] whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of Arms Act. They were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 26 of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. It was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently and the period of detention undergone by the petitioners would be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while advancing his arguments submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses who were members of the raiding party except one of the seizure-list witnesses who is the only independent witness, but he turned hostile as this witness stated that his thumb impression was taken on 25.01.2000 at the police station and the other seizure list witness was not examined. He also submitted that the seized articles were not sealed at the place of occurrence and the sanction for prosecution has not been properly proved as only the signature on the sanction letter has been proved and marked as an exhibit.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that there was recovery of one country made pistol alongwith one cartridge from the possession of Tanbir Mian and one cartridge from the possession of Lalu Mian, but there was no recovery from the petitioner-Imran Seikh @ Mian. However, the learned counsel did not dispute the fact that all the petitioners have been charged on account of the allegation of joint possession of the arms. He also submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled for benefit of doubt.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Tanbir Mian @ Tanvir Ansari and Imran Seikh @ Mian (petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 878 of 2013) have already remained in custody for 5½ months and Lalu Mian (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1051 of 2013) has already remained in custody for 6½ months. He also submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2000 and more than 20 years have passed since the date of occurrence and the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent which is apparent from the impugned judgments. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioners may be confined to the period already undergone by them in custody. But he did not dispute that the minimum sentences under the respective offences have been imposed upon the petitioners.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there are consistent evidences on record to convict the petitioners. They submit