Possession of arms and ammonium nitrate justifies conviction under the Arms and Explosive Substances Acts, with concurrent sentencing warranted due to lengthy custody.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2018 passed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh No.1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 291 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 25(1-B)a/ 26 of the ARMS ACT , sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 17 of the CLA Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under section 25(1-B)a of the ARMS ACT and in default in payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months, RI for 7 years along with a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under section 26 of the ARMS ACT and in default in payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months, RI for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.10000/- for the offence under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and in default in payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months, RI for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.10000/- for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and in default in payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months, RI for a period of 6 months along with a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under section 17 of the CLA Act and in default in payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 month.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the self-statement of Anil Kumar Singh recorded on 11.03.2010 in which it has been stated that a secret information was received by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag that Bhuneshwar Mahto (appellant) a hardcore extremist has come to his house equipped with explosive substances in order to execute some devious plan. At this information two separate teams were constituted by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag and the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro. It has been alleged that both the teams along with CRPF personnel reached village Sapmarwa and surrounded the house of Bhuneshwar Mahto. On entering the house Bhuneshwar Mahto was found sitting in the courtyard with a rifle kept on his thigh. He was overpowered and the rifle was seized.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Bishnugarh PS Case No. 33/10 was instituted against Bhuneshwar Mahto. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 291 of 2012. Charge was framed against the accused under section 25(1-B)a/ 26 of the ARMS ACT , sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, section 17 of the CLA Act and section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act which were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

5. PW-1Ram Dayal Munda was posted as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Bishnugarh PS and on 11.03.2010 on the basis of the self- statement of Anil Kumar Singh he had registered Bishnugarh PS Case No. 33/10. He had been handed over the investigation of the case. The fardbeyan and the endorsement on the same by Anil Kumar Singh have been proved and marked as Ext.1/1 & 1 respectively. His endorsement has been proved and mark