JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Siddartha Roy, Advocate.

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

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1, Khunti in Cr. Appeal No. 80 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20.03.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in G.R. No. 488 of 2006 / T.R. No. 67 of 2007 (arising out of Arki P.S. Case No. 31/2004) and dismissed the criminal appeal.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Sections 25(1-b) a and 26 of the Arms Act and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for each offence and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submitted that both the seizure list witnesses have turned hostile and neither the time of seizure, nor the place of seizure has been proved and as such, the recovery itself is under doubt. He further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the raiding team reached the village at 7.45 A.M., surrounded the house of the petitioner, called the witnesses and conducted the raid and the seizure list is alleged to have been prepared at 8 A.M. He submits that it is an impossibility that having reached the village at 7.45 A.M., the entire proceeding regarding search, seizure and recovery including the preparation of seizure list was completed within a short period of 15 minutes. He submitted that considering this impossibility, the entire allegation is absolutely improbable and the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. He further submitted that so far as the recovery is concerned, some of the witnesses have stated that the recovery was made under the bedroll in the room of the petitioner and a few of them have stated that bedroll was beneath the cot of the petitioner. Accordingly, there is inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the place of recovery as well. Learned counsel referred to evidence of the seizure list witnesses and submitted that although they have not denied their signatures on the seizure list, but they have stated that their signatures were not taken at the time of seizure. He also submitted that there has been no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner, even if the seizure is assumed to have been proved. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sans Pal Singh vs. State of Delhi (AIR 1999 SC 49).

6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2004 and was enlarged on bail on 22.02.2005 during trial and he also remained in judicial custody from 03.5.2012 to 10.7.2012 during pendency of the present criminal revision application and accordingly, he has remained in custody for more than six months and he has no criminal antecedent and therefore, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner may be confined to the period already undergone by him in judicial custody.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

7. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no scope for re-appreciation of the evidences on record and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction. He submitted that both the judgments passed by the learned courts below are well reaso