K.S.GAREWAL,J - (1.) SUDHIR has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated February 9, 2000, whereunder sentence passed on him for conviction under Section 95 of the Arms Act was suspended and he was given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year subject to his furnishing probation bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
(2.) THE appellant has also challenged his conviction for the offence. Sudhir was taken in custody on July 1, 1996 in a case under Section 307 IPC when he disclosed that he had concealed a spring actuated knife Ex.P-1, whereupon the knife was recovered from the place of concealment and FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. The learned trial Court accepted the prosecution evidence of Constable Raghbir PW1 and A.S.I. Manphool Singh PW 3 with regard to the recovery of the knife from the possession of the appellant and convicted him. However, he was given the benefit of probation and released on probation for a period of one year.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant and his co-accused Amar Chand (father) were tried for having inflicted injuries with a knife, but when the eye witness did not support the prosecution version, both the appellant and his father were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC on February 9, 2000. Therefore, it is contended that the Arms Act case was also a false one, which had been foisted on the appellant in order to prop on the main case.;