- (1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 11-10- 1982 by Sri Parduman Kumar, learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge (Higher Criminal Court), Budaun who partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1982. While upholding the conviction of revisionist under Section 25 of Arms Act, he reduced his sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment to nine months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentences were initially recorded by Sri Virendra Singh, learned Ilnd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Budaun in Case No. 935 of 1981 on 14-7-1982.
(2.) PROSECUTION case briefly stated was that on 25-6-1981 at about 3,30 P. M., Sri Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj PW 1 S. O. Hazratpur, district Budaun had an information by informer that the revisionist was manufacturing illicit pistols and guns. On this information S. O. Sri Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj along with Constables Mangal Sen PW 3, Prakash Chandra Tyagi, Rajendra Singh and Chandra Pal Singh raided the house of revisionist in village Gauntra and found the revisionist rubbing the barrel of a pistol on vice 'Bank' to bring it to size. He was surrounded, out numbered and over powered. Country made pistol of twleve bore (Ext. 26) from his left hand and file (Ext. 31) from his right hand were recovered two triggers Exts. 1 and 2 ; two bodies of pistol Ext. 3 and 4, two ejected cartridges Exts. 5 and 6 ; two dises Exts. 7 and 8 ; one body of revolver Ext 9 ; one live cartridge 12 bore Ext. 10 and other Exts, total number 31, were also recovered from that place as detailed in memo Ext. Ka.-1 which were sealed on the spot and duly attested by witnesses. Revisionist was marched to police station and after the report was scribed by Constable Ram Naresh PW 4, revisionist was sent up by Investigating Officer Sri S. S. Chauhan PW 2 after procuring necessary sanction for the prosecution from District Magistrate. Prosecution examined four witnesses in support of their case. Eyewitnesses, who testified the recovery aforesaid and identified the articles given above are Santosh Kumar Bhardwaj PW 1 and Mangal Sen PW 3 while the two other witnesses are formal.
(3.) IN his statement, accused revisionist denied the aforesaid recovery and did not adduce any evidence in defence. Both the courts below believed the PWs and recorded the conviction and sentence aforesaid. Aggrieved by this decision, this revision has been preferred.;