Back
2026 Supreme(Pat) 301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.
Dhamalu Pandey @ Ajay Kumar Pandey S/o Dinanath Pandey - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.756 of 2009
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Muskan Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramchandra Singh, A.P.P.
IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt; absence of key witnesses and inadequate evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26(1) and 26(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 114 – Seizure of illegal fire-arms – Conviction and sentence – Statement of informant as deposed before Court, is neither convincing nor trustworthy – Investigating Officer has not been examined who is material witness on point of identifying place of occurrence – Omission to examine Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to defence – Prosecution version suffers from contradictions and omissions in statements of witnesses – Place from where accused/appellant was apprehended has not been specifically proved – District Magistrate should have mentioned details of recovered arms to show that sanction was not granted mechanically – In absence of legal sanction, conviction of accused under Section 3/25 of Arms Act could not be sustained – Evidence of all factual witnesses are neither trustworthy nor convincing – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 30 to 33)
Arms Act, 1959 – Section 39 – Sanction for prosecution – Act of grant of sanction for launching prosecution is not an empty formality which can be mechanically performed – Giving of sanction confers jurisdiction on Court to try the case – It has to be proved that it was granted by authority after applying his mind – It must be shown that firearm or weapon with respect to which sanction was prayed was actually taken to authority concerned and after looking to it and relevant papers, understanding and after applying his mind sanction was granted. (Paras 28 and 29)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for the defense's lack of evidence. (Para 9 , 14 , 28) |
| 3. consideration of evidentiary standards. (Para 15 , 16 , 21) |
| 4. importance of proper sanction for prosecution. (Para 25 , 31) |
| 5. result and implications of judgment. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.
Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2009 passed by learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 08/18 of 2009, arising out of Kateya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26(1) and 26(2) of the Arms Act and Section 414 of IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 26(2) of the Arms Act. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 414 of IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. According to self statement recorded by informant, namely, Sardendu Sarat, Officer-in-charge, Kateya Police Station, on 02.05.2006 at 18 hrs. at village Belitola, it was asserted that he received secret information that dreaded criminal, namely, Dhamalu Pandey (appellant) is at the house of Pankhi Mishra with his associates and if raid is not conducted at the earliest, they would commit a major crime. On the said information, he registered Sanha No. 26 and he along with raiding team, after informing the senior officer, proceeded and after reaching Phulwaria P.S., he held a discussion with S.D.P.O., Hathua and after preparing the action plan and reached at the house of Pankhi Mishra along with raiding party at about 04:30 P.M. and saw that after seeing the police, a man made an attempt to escape with the carbine hanging in his neck and the said man was apprehended between the house of Pankhi Mishra and the Garage and he disclosed his name as Sanjay Pandey, but by then the villagers arrived and the said person disclosed his name as Dhamalu Pandey. In presence of villagers namely, Baijnath Mishra and Jagarnath Mishra search was conducted and from his possession 9 mm carbine was recovered and in the magazine of said carbine 10 rounds of live cartridge of 9mm were loaded, one country made loaded pistol of 0.315 was recovered and on unloading the same one live cartridge of 0.315 was recovered and a Nepali Khukhari were also recovered. Besides, Nokia mobile and golden color Bajaj CT100 Motorcycle (without number) bearing Chassis No. DUFCMH29090, Engine No. DUMCMH68260 was also recovered. When query was made to the apprehended accused, he failed to produce valid document regarding the seized article and seizure list was prepared.
4. On the basis of self statement recorded by informant, namely, Sardendu Sarat, Officer-in-charge, Kateya Police Station, Kateya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2006 was registered under Section 414 of the IPC and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and others under Section 414 of the IPC and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance. The case was committed to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant under Section 414 of the IPC and Sections 25(1-b)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring
