STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. IBRAHIM SALU KOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the State of Gujarat, is directed against the impugned judgment and order, dated 16-6-1992, rendered in Criminal Case No. 1884 of 1991, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kachchh at Bhuj, wherein the respondent-Ibrahim Salu Koli, who came to be tried for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 25 (l)(b)(l-A) of the Arms Act, 1959, was at the end of trial ordered to be acquitted.

(2.) According to the prosecution, Mr. R. B. Odedra [P.W. 3, Exh. 10] when he was serving as P.S.I in Bhuj Taluka Police Station in February, 1991, he received an information that the respondent was in possession of firearm in his 'Bhunga' (Hut) without licence. He accordingly on 26-2-1991 obtained a search warrant (Exh. 7) from the District Magistrate, Kachchh, and on the basis of the same on 28-2-1991 in the presence of two panchas, viz., Arjan Jiva (P.W. 1, Exh. 6) and Lakhman Radha (P.W. 2, Exh. 9), after explaining them the contents of the said warrant and obtaining their signatures thereunder, raided the 'Bhunga' (Hut) of the respondent who was present in the house at village - Mokhana. This search warrant was shown to the respondent, under which his left hand thumb impression was taken in presence of the Panchas. Thereafter, on taking out search of 'Bhunga', one single muzzle loaded country-gun was recovered from the barrel' for which the respondent had neither licence nor any other explanation to offer. On the basis of this, the said country-gun was seized and the respondent came to be arrested under Panchnama Exh. 8, below which all the three, viz., two Panchas and the P.S.I.-Mr. Odedra placed their respective signatures. On the basis of these allegations, after obtaining necessary sanction (Exh. 14), a complaint was filed wherein after the investigation was over, the respondent came to be charge-sheeted for the aforesaid alleged offences to stand trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kachchh, at Bhuj.

(3.) At trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried on the alleged ground that he had been falsely implicated and that no weapon as such was recovered from him.