PRAYAG SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this revision are that the Applicant Prayag Singh belonged to XI Battalion PAC and was posted at Sitapur and was living in the company barracks. On 6 -5 -1966 in the morning at about 11 P.M. his Platoon Commander Sri Qamar Husain was informed that the Applicant had some unlicensed live cartridges in his box and was intending to remove them the same day. Thereupon Sri Qamar Husain informed Company Commander of the Battalion Sri Sita Ram and the Company Commander along with Sri Qamar Husain, Platoon Commander, Sita Ram Singh Head Constable and Sri Raghunath Singh Head Constable went to the barracks where the Applicant lived and got his box opened and searched. They found 55 rounds of live cartridges of 303 Bore Rifle and 8 charger clips in a box belonging to the Applicant. The box was locked and the keys were provided by the Applicant who opened the box himself. Thereupon a recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 was prepared by the Platoon Commander and the cartridges and the charger clips were sealed. The Applicant was then taken along with the articles to the Assistant Commandant who was officiating as Commandant on that day. The Assistant Commandant interrogated the Applicant and Sri Ram Kumar Singh Adjutant sent the recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 along with the recovered articles to the Station Officer, Incharge Police Station Kotwali, Sitapur where the police authorities registered a case against the Applicant and started investigation. The investigation was done by Sri Gaya Pd. Pandey Sub Inspector but later on the case was referred to the C.I.D. and further investigation was carried on by Sri Daya Snanker Sharma, C.I.D. Inspector who submitted a chargesheet against the Applicant.

(2.) THE Applicant denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded not guilty. According to him the Company Commander Sri Sita Ram had a buffalo and four or five days before the present occurrence the Applicant was, asked by the Company Commander to bring grass for the buffalo which the Applicant refused to do and that was why, according to the Applicant, he was, implicated falsely. The Applicant also denied that any recovery was made from his box or that any recovery memo was prepared in his presence. He, however, admitted his signatures on the recovery memo Ex. Ka 1 but stated that he was made to sign a blank paper and did not know on what paper he was putting his signatures at.

(3.) BELIEVING the prosecution case the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate convicted the Applicant Under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act arid sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment under that section. Against his conviction the Applicant went up in appeal which was dismissed by the learned 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Sitapur and it is against this order that the present revision has been filed in this Court.