KUNDAL RAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19th April, 2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 139/99 by the Session Judge, Ambikapur (Sarguja), whereby the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment and order dated 7.12.99 passed in Criminal Case No. 1034/97 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, by which the applicant was convicted under Section 25 (1B) (b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.100, was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.96 at about 4.00 p.m., S.H.O Lakhanpur, M.K. Singh (PW3), had gone to village Puhuputra for investigation of a criminal case. The allegations are that he found that the applicant was roaming in the village having a sword in his hands. M.K. Singh (PW3) seized the sword from the applicant in presence of 2 witnesses namely: Dhaneshwar (PW1) and Lacchanram (PW2). Seizure memo (Ex.Pl) was prepared and the applicant was taken into custody. M.K. Singh (PW3) thereafter returned to the police station and lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P2). The statements of witnesses were also recorded by M.K. Singh (PVV3). In fact, M.K. Singh himself completed the entire investigation and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed by him under Section 25 (IB) (b) of Asms Act. The learned Magistrate recorded the finding that the seizure of the sword was proved by the prosecution, therefore, the applicant was liable for punishment under Section 25 (IB) (b) of Arms Act. The above finding has been confirmed in the appeal.

(3.) Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, argued that the arresting and the Investigation Officer cannot be the same person. This vitiates the entire investigation. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana., 1995 AIR(SC) 2339. He further argued that the conviction was bad-in-law because the charges were vague. He also argued that notification relating to prohibition of carrying a particular kind of arm was not filed and proved by the prosecution, therefore, the conviction vitiates on this account also