- (1.) BOTH these revision applications arise out of the same case and as such, these are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Dhanbad, in Cr.Appeal No. 42 of 2002, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 18.4.2002 passed by Sri Siddharth Mandal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad, in G.R Case No. 2213 of 1992 / T.R No. 1155 of 2002, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below with modification in sentence. The Trial Court had found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Sections 25 (1-B) and 26 (1) of the Arms Act and they were convicted for the same and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years and six months and a fine of Rs.500/- each for each of the offences under Sections 25 (1-B) and Section 26 (1) of the Arms Act and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Appellate Court below, however, maintained the conviction of the petitioners, but modified the sentences of the petitioners, Bhuneshwar Mahto and Narayan Mahto to S.I for one year for the offence under Sections 25 (1-B) and S.I for six months for the offence under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and with this modification in sentence with respect to two petitioners , the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the Lower Court Records, it appears that the petitioners were made accused in Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 366 of 1992, corresponding to G.R No. 2213 of 1992 on the allegation that on 13.6.1992, the petitioners were apprehended from a motorcycle and from possession of the petitioner Nem Chand Mahto , one loaded country made pistol and one cartridge were recovered whereas, from possession of the petitioners Bhubneshwar Mahto and Narayan Mahto, one cartridges each were recovered in presence of two independent persons Shouki Thakur and Bal Mukund Prasad and the seizure list was prepared. It further appears that after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and the petitioners were ultimately put to trial. Lower Court Record shows that in course of trial, six witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the informant, the I.O and the Sergeant Major, who had examined the fire arms. The seizure list was also proved and the recovered fire arm and cartridges were also produced, which were marked as material exhibits. Though it appears that the seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Shouki Thakur and Bal Mukund Prasad, but only one seizure list witness namely, P.W.5, Bal Mukund Prasad has been examined and the another seizure list witness Shouki Thaken has not been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the seizure of the fire arm and cartridges from the petitioners have not been proved, inasmuch as, the seizure list witness had turned hostile, though he had proved his signature on the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit 1 / 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the other seizure list witness had not been examined in this case and as such, the very seizure of the fire arm and cartridges from the petitioners could not be proved. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offence under Sections 25 (1-B) and 26 (1) of the Arms Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;