VRIDHICHAND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment affirming the applicant's conviction for offence under Section 25(1B) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (henceforth 'the Act, 1959') and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2,000, the applicant has preferred the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'CrPC').

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, as unfolded during the course of trial, is as under:-

(3.) Shri Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, while criticising the judgment of conviction recorded by the two Courts below, would submit that the conviction as recorded by the two Courts below is patently illegal as the prosecution has failed to prove the said offence beyond shadow of doubt as neither the prosecution has proved that the alleged arms seized is a prohibited arms under Section 4 of the Act, 1959 and further more the seizure of the said arms is also not duly established. Therefore, the conviction followed by the sentence deserves to be set aside.