JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. B. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 07.01.2012 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 99/2011, whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 09.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 3803/2008, T.R. No. 563/2011.

4. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and in case of default of payment of fine, he has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner has been further convicted for offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently except the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of about 11 months in connection with the present case. He also submits that so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the seizure list witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 2 and 4 have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile and there is no independent witness in the present case to support the prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that so far as co-accused, namely, Afzal Alam is concerned, he has got no knowledge as to what ultimately happened in his case and from perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that at the appellate stage in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2011, the present petitioner was the sole appellant.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that a supplementary-affidavit has been filed giving the details of the criminal cases against the petitioner, as mentioned in para-4 of the affidavit. He submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the concurrent findings given by the learned courts below, the petitioner is not entitled to any interference in revisional jurisdiction on the point of conviction as well as on the point of sentence.

Findings of this Court

7. As per the prosecution story, which is based on fardbeyan of the informant, S.I. Radhika Raman Minj, Officer-in-charge of Nirsa Police Station, which was recorded on 27.12.2008 near Mugma Railway Station Cabin at 23:45 hours, the informant was posted as officer-in-charge of police station and on the aforesaid date and time, he recorded his fardbeyan that while making investigation of Nirsa P.S. Case No. 233/2008 dated 24.12.2008, he came to know that some criminals have assembled near Mugma Railway Station and planning to commit some offence. The informant, in association with police raiding party of different police officials and constables, proceeded to Mugma Railway Station at 23:00 hours and he found near the Mugma Railway Station Cabin that two boys were talking to each other and they tried to flee away by seeing the patrolling party. The police raiding team chased them and some nearby villagers were also associated. The two persons were apprehended and were searched by the police in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Guddu Ansari and Alam Ansari and their possession was searched, before which the police officers also gave their voluntary search, in which. Upon search of the two boys, one 9 mm country mad