JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

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

3. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. No. 619 of 2005/T.R. No.922 of 2009 (arising out of Mandar P.S. Case No.11/2005 dated 28.02.2005) had convicted the petitioner under Sections 25(1-b)a/26(3) of the Arms Act and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and had further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 26(3) of the Arms Act and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days and directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone in jail custody during trial shall be set off.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 139/2009 in which the learned appellate court, vide Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-IX, Ranchi, affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act and altered his conviction under Section 26(3) of the Arms Act to Section 26(1) of the Arms Act.

5. The learned appellate court reduced the sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act to Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and in default in payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days and directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period undergone in jail custody during trial shall be set off. The criminal appeal was partly allowed by altering conviction of the petitioner under Section 26(3) of the Arms Act to Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and also by modifying the sentence.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the main point involved in the present case is that the recovery of the articles exhibited before the learned trial court as material exhibits and their seizure from the possession of the petitioner, have not been proved. He submitted that apart from the aforesaid point, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the various witnesses particularly in connection with the time of the incident. He further submitted that the independent seizure list witnesses of the case have not been examined. Learned counsel referring to the evidence of P.W.-1, who was a member of the raiding party, submitted that P.W.-1 has stated that the arrest had taken place at 10.30, but the arms were not sealed at the place of occurrence. So far as P.W.-2 is concerned, he was also a member of the raiding party and has stated that incident was after 01.30 and the seized arms were neither sealed at the time of seizure, nor any identification mark was made on the seized arms. P.W.-3 was also a member of the raiding party and he has stated that the time of occurrence is after 12 noon. This witness also stated that there was neither and identification mark on the seized pistol, nor it was sealed. P.W.-4 is the Investigating Officer of the case and has stated that he received the fire arms in a sealed condition, though he did not mention it in the diary. P.W.-5 is the Informant of the case and was a member of the raiding party and he had prepared the seiz