- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14.1.2000 passed by learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No.86 of 1997, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment dated 26.7.1997 passed by Shri Vishwanath Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in G.R. No.347 of 92 / T.R. No.427 of 97, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the Trial Court below had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 25(a) and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.200/- for each of the offences and the sentences were directed to be run concurrently, which was upheld by the learned Appellate Court below. Petitioner had been made accused in Ratu (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 8 of 1992, corresponding to G.R. No.347 of 1992 for the offence under Section 25(a) and 26 of the Arms Act, as on 29.1.1992, the petitioner was apprehended and one country made pistol loaded with one cartridge was recovered from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of the independent witnesses. The case was accordingly instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and accordingly, cognizance was taken and ultimately the petitioner was put to trial. Lower court record shows that in course of trial, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses including seizure list witnesses and the police officer, who had made the recovery of the fire arms from the petitioner. It also appears that seizure list, the FIR, the Order of Sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and the report of the ballistic expert were proved and were marked as exhibits. The witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the Trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 25(a) and 26 of the Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly, which was upheld by the learned Appellate Court below by the impugned Judgment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are absolutely illegal, in as much as, it would be apparent that the I.O. and the ballistic expert were not examined in the case. The report of the ballistic expert was only proved by a formal witness, who had no occasion to have any acquaintance with the ballistic expert. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that even the I.O. has not been examined in this case, which has vitally prejudiced the defense case. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the fire arm and cartridge allegedly seized in the case were not produced in the Court below and were not marked as material exhibits. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in view of these infirmities in the case, the petitioner ought to have been acquitted by the Court below, and in any case, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below.;