BACHCHA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications arise out of one and the same judgment passed by Sri Ram Autar Rastogi, Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants against their order of conviction and sentence under Sec. 25 (a), Arms Act, passed by Sri B. D. Gupta, Magistrate First Glass Banda.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these revision applications are as follows : On 22-3-1965 Sub-Inspector R. N. Nagar of thana Naraini, district Banda, received information that the applicants were going towards Kachhiyan Purwa with unlicensed arms and ammunition's, This information was received by the aforesaid Sub-Inspector in village Metiari where he had gone in connection with certain investigation. S. I. Nagar collected a number of witnesses and reached the canal culvert which was close to Kachhiyan Purwa. The applicants were seen going. The informant pointed out towards them. The applicants were arrested. Their persons were searched in presence of witnesses. A country-made gun and nine live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Bachcba Singh (applicant) and one Muzzle Loading Gun with a quantity of gun-powder was recovered from the possession of Rohini. The unlicensed arms and ammunition's recovered from the possession of each of them were sealed at the spot in presence of witnesses. The police then registered a case against the applicants under Sec. 25 (a) of the Arms Act. The police investigated the case and after completing the investigation challaned the applicants. The applicants were tried by Sri B. D. Gupta, Magistrate First Glass and each of them was convicted to 15 months' R. I. Their appeals were dismissed by Sri Ram Autar Rastogi, Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda. Being dissatisfied they have come in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Joint trial of both the applicants was illegal and was against the provisions of Sec. 239-A Gr. P. G. This point was argued before the lower appellate court as well. The lower appellate court held that in the course of same transaction the persons of the applicants were searched and, therefore, the joint trial of the applicants was legal and valid as provided under sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (d) to Sec. 239 Cr. P.C. Sec. 239 Gr. P.C. reads as below :