MAHADEO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the conviction and sentence of the revisionist under S.25 Arms Act. The case of the prosecution was that on 27-2-1979 at about 5.30 p.m. in village Gouhania, Police Station Mahrajganj, District Faizabad. S.I. Ram Narain Shukla (P.W. 1) apprehended Mahadeo revisionist and recovered one country made pistol and two live cartridges without any licence from his possession. A Fard about the recovery was prepared and First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station, Mahrajganj on the same day at 7-50 p.m. After investigation sanction for prosecution was obtained from the District Magistrate, Faizabad. The revisionist was thereafter prosecuted for the offence under S.25 Arms Act. On behalf of the prosecution two witnesses S.I. Ram Narain Shukla (P.W. 1) and Constable Ram Komal Yadav (P.W. 2) were examined as eye-witnesses of the recovery. S.O. Kripa Shanker Sachan (P.W. 3) investigated the case and obtained sanction. The revisionist denied the recovery and pleaded his false implication on account of enmity. Learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case and convicted the revisionist under S.25, Arms Act and sentenced to one year R.I. In appeal, the conviction was maintained but sentence was reduced to six months. Feeling dissatisfied with this Mahadeo has preferred this revision.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Assistant Government Advocate appearing for the State. The record of the lower Court was summoned and perused.

(3.) It has, been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the case against the revisionist was not proved by reliable evidence. In order to support his contention he took me through the evidence recorded in case. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. As a general rule the High Court does not interfere with a finding of fact in revision specially when there are concurrent findings of fact of the lower Courts.