RAHEES KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, District Dewas in Criminal Appeal No. 071/2001 upholding the conviction of the accused Raees Khan for offence under Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-.

(2.) The brief facts of the necessary for the elucidation of the controversy are that on the date of incident dated 15.1.1985 at around 15.20 p.m. at bus-stand Khategaon the accused was found in possession of a spring knife and a 12 bore country made revolver (Katta) without having a licence in contravention to the Section 25 of the Arms Act as well as the notification of the State Government bearing No. 631/6552 -11-D and (I) dated 12.11.1974. The offence was registered under Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act; he stated to have purchased the said gun from Ram Vijayavargyia for Rs.450/- from Sarangpur. The entire investigation was carried out by Thana Incharge Shri S.N. Pandey on receiving information from an informant. The Thana Incharge has stated that on information he had gone along with the panch witnesses Subhash Chandra Dubey and Gopal Dhankar of Khategaon and taken the search at the bus-stand and the accused being identified as Raees Khan R/o Ashta, the revolver and a knife were recovered from the accused . And he was duly charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act and crime registered at No.12/85.

(3.) The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the investigation launched. According to the statement of accused, the said revolver was purchased by Raees Khan from Babu Khan and Babu Khan purchased the same from his relative of Sarangpur. However,co-accused Munna could not be apprehended. Co-accused Munna and Salim were arrested later for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act. However, they were acquitted on 30.4.2001 whereas accused Raees Khan was convicted on trial. The accused however, had abjured his guilt stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. He stated that independent witnesses Gopal and Subhash have not supported the prosecution and that the recovery of the seizure was not in accordance with the law; despite which the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as herein below. The appellate Court has also upheld the conviction and hence this revision petition.