AND

ORDER

DATED

14.03.2012/28.03.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND

JMFC, KOPPA IN C.C.NO.653/2002 AND JUDGMENT AND

ORDER DATED 20.11.2015 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.62/2012 ON

THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHIKMAGALURU AND ETC.,

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR

FINAL

HEARING,

THIS

DAY,

COURT

MADE

FOLLOWING:

R

Digitally signed

by N UMA

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ORDER

1.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated

14.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2012 in

C.C.No.653/2002 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and

JMFC, Koppa and its confirmation judgment and order dated

20.11.2015 in Crl.A.No.62/2012 on the file of the Court of I

Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru,

seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the

Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for

the offences punishable under Sections 3 read with 25(1) of

Indian Arms Act (for short ‘Act’).

2.

The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court

and the appellant before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on

17.01.2002 at about 5.30 p.m., Sthirur Village, Koppa Taluk a

single barrel gun was seized at the residence of the petitioner.

Based on the seizure, a complaint came to be lodged against

the petitioner herein. Thereafter the First Information Report

- 3 -

was registered in Crime No.8/2002 for the offences punishable

under Sections 3 read with 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act. The

police have conducted the investigation and submitted the

charge sheet.

4.

To

prove

the

case

of

the

prosecution,

the

prosecution examined, in all, 6 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 6

and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, the

defence got marked Exs.D1 to D3 and also identified material

object M.O.1. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for

the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, and

the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction

rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set

aside the concurrent findings.

5.

Heard Shri Leeladhar H.P, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent – State.

- 4 -

6.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner that, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order

passed by the Appellate Court are against the evidence and law

on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

7.

It is further submitted that the defence evidence led

by the petitioner was not considered by the Courts below and

recorded the conviction only based on the evidence of the

prosecution witness, which is erroneous and illegal. The same

is required to be set aside.

8.

It is further submitted that all the witnesses are

police officials and stated to have seized the said single barrel

gun at the house of the petitioner stating that the said weapon

was of the petitioner and the petitioner had no valid licence

which appears to be erroneous. It is further submitted that in

fact, The brother of the petitioner has a valid license and it was

not renewed. Despite several applications having been made

for renewal, it was not renewed. In the meantime, the

Investigating Officer deliberately seized the said single-barrel

gun and registered the case, which is erroneous and the Courts

- 5 -

ought to have considered the earlier license which had by the

brother of the petitioner to possess the said gun. Making such

submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to

allow the petition.

9.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

(for short