Advocates:
['PANKAJ KUMAR', 'A P P', '', 'Prabir Kumar Chatterjee']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1140 of 2003

-------

Bansi Lal Hazam

…..

….

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…..

….Opposite Party

CORAM

: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner

:Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Prabir Chaterjee, SPP

………

06/07.04.2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This revision application is directed against the

judgment dated 29.08.2003 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal

No.180 of 1998; whereby the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 06.11.1998 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No.2065 of

1992, T.R. No.655 of 1998; whereby the petitioner was

convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-b)(a) & 26 (1)

of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year

for each of the above offence and directed to run both the

sentences concurrently; has been affirmed and the appeal

filed by the petitioner was dismissed .

3.

The prosecution case in short is that on

1.6.1992 one Mr. R.N. Kunwar, Assistant Sub Inspector of

Police along with other official posted at Bank More Police

Station, while searching at about 1.00 P.M., a Tata Model

608 vehicle bearing No. WB-55-0322 was seen coming

2

rashly. It was stopped by the police and the driver was

asked to produce the papers of the vehicle. The driver took

out the papers one by one from the rekine bag in

suspicious condition. On suspicion the informant took the

bag in his hand in which he found a rifle cartridge. After

recovery of cartridge personal search of the body of the

driver was made and a country made pistol was also

recovered from his waist. The driver could not produce any

legal paper for the possession of the said arm. Thereafter,

arm and a cartridge were seized by the police and

accordingly seizure list was prepared in presence of two

independent witnesses.

On the basis of aforesaid written report Bank

More P.S. Case No.350/92 for the offence u/S 25(1-b)(a)

and 26 (1) of the Arms Act was registered against the

accused person and after investigation police submitted

charge-sheet for the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, charge

was framed against the petitioner for which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried and finally the petitioner has

been convicted.

4.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner assailed the impugned order on following

grounds:-

(i)

The Investigating Officer as well as other

raiding party were not examined except the informant of

the case who is P.W.-4.

3

(ii)

P.W.-4 has admitted that pipe gun, pistol

and rifle are three different arms and admittedly, the

Sergeant Major who has given his ballistic report after 26

days of occurrence is of pipe gun and it is also an admitted

fact that the seized article was pistol which clearly

transpires from FIR.

(iii) Both the seizure list witnesses have been

declared hostile as they have stated that they have signed

on a blank paper.

(iv)

The cartridge allegedly recovered from the

petitioner also finds discrepancy with respect to the

number mentioned in the cartridge.

(v)

Mr. Kumar further raised a legal question

and submits that as per the settled preposition of law,

seized article should be sealed on the spot and special

marking should be made on the seized article and

subsequently shall be sent to the Sergeant Major for its

examination. In the instant case there is a gap in the chain,

inasmuch as, the prosecution has failed to prove that the

article was sealed on the spot and marking was done,

which clearly transpires that after a gap of 26 days the

Sergeant Major has examined the seized article so there is

every chances of manipulation.