STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHEMUDBHAI GULAMNABHI KAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent came to be tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Second Court), Bharuch, for offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(b), 27 and 29 of the Arms Act for having been found in possession of a country-made pistol (Tamancha) and three live cartridges, without licence, on 3.8.1995, at about 20.30 hours near Jadeshwar Crossing on National Highway No.8. He came to be acquitted by the learned J. M. F. C. by judgment and order dated 31st May, 1996, which has given rise to this appeal by the State under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that Dy. S. P. Chudasama of Bharuch received an information that one person named as Mahemud Gulamnabi Kazi of village Furaj was likely to visit Jadeshwar Crossing area with an unauthorised weapon in the late evening and, therefore, police arranged a watch at the place. After reaching the place, they summoned Panch witnesses and kept a watch. At about 8.00 P.M., it is alleged that the said Mahemud Gulamnabi Kazi alighted from a truck and headed towards the rickshaw stand when he was apprehended by police. On search of his person, nothing was found, but a Tamancha was found from a plastic bag which was carried by him in his hand. The Tamancha was loaded with two live cartridges and one cartridge was in the bag. A Panchnama was, therefore, drawn to that effect, statements of witnesses were recorded and, ultimately, charge sheet was filed and Criminal Case No.39636 of 1995 came to be registered.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raval, submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in not accepting the evidence of police witnesses and in recording acquittal mainly on the ground that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Mr. Raval submitted that even where Panch witnesses do not support the prosecution case, if the evidence of police witness is found to be otherwise reliable, conviction can be recorded and, in the instant case, all police witnesses have consistently deposed to the effect that the respondent alighted from a truck and was apprehended and, at that time, he was found to be in possession of contraband weapon and ammunition. Simply because Panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, acquittal ought not to have been recorded and, therefore, the appeal may be allowed.