P.N.Harkauli - (1.) SIPAHI Lal, applicant, was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to one year's R. I. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 22-6-1972 at about 7.30 a. m. Sipahi Lal applicant and one Sant Lal were arrested by A. S. I. Ram Murti Misra. Upon a search a country made pistol Ex. 1, and two cartridges Ex. 2 and 3, were recovered from the possession of the applicant while two cartridges were recovered from the possession of Sant Lal. Both these persons were said to have been arrested and searched in presence of two witnesses of the public, namely, Ram Charan and Budhu. Both, the applicant as well as Sant Lal, were accordingly challaned under Section 25 of the Arms Act. It may be noted that separate cases were registered against the applicant and Sant Lal and they were prosecuted in separate cases and both the applicant and Sant Lal were convicted by the learned Magistrate. Both of them appealed and the appeals of both of them were heard on the same day by the same learned Addl. Sessions Judge namely, Sri A. B. Srivastava. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the applicant's appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence. He, however, allowed the appeal of Sant Lal observing as follows : "According to him (i. e. learned counsel for Sant Lal) it is hardly probable that a person would be keeping cartridges without any arms for use of the same......It is difficult to believe that the accused appellant (i. e. Sant Lal) would have kept merely cartridges when he had no arms to enable him to use the same......It also cannot be ruled out that as the appellant was with Sipahi Lal (i. e. the applicant in the present revision) at the time the recovery was made from the latter, he might also have been arrayed as an accused utilising part of the ammunition recovered from Sipahi Lal." Learned counsel for the applicant argued that when the evidence of the very same witnesses with regard to a part of the same occurrence was disbelieved by the same learned Judge in respect of another person said to have been arrested with fire arms at the same time as the applicant, it would be very incongruous to believe the evidence of the same witness in respect of the applicant. The argument appears to be to have force. The observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the case of Sant Lal which have been quoted above clearly amount to this that the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that same cartridges which were recovered from the present applicant were utilised for implicating Sant Lal. In other words, according to the learned Judge the cartridges recovered from the applicant were falsely shown to have been recovered from Sant Lal. if that is so, it follows that all the prosecution witnesses gave false evidence against Sant Lal. What assurance then could there be that their statements against the applicant were true and reliable ? In my opinion, having come to the conclusion mentioned above the learned Judge was not justified in recording a conviction against the applicant. In the circumstances it is not possible to uphold the conviction of the applicant. The application for revision is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Revision allowed.;