MOHAN RADHESHYAM RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant against the order passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.68/2018 on 28.06.2019, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant by the Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhar in RCT No.902261/2015, has been affirmed.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, on 09.02.2015 when Amit Solanki was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Kotwali, Dhar, he received an information that a person wearing black jacket and white sports shoes is carrying an illegal fire arm and may commit some crime. Shri Solanki after recording the information in Rojnamcha proceeded towards the spot along with Constable Manish Mishra and found accused whose dress matched with the description received from the informant. Mohan was apprehended and was searched apprising him of the information received against him. His search revealed a country made pistol with two cartridges. The applicant was not possessing any licence, he was, therefore, arrested and arm and ammunition were seized from him. Matter was registered in Police Station Kotwali, Dhar. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 07.05.2017 written an order of conviction sentencing the applicant to undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000-00 and to suffer default imprisonment on non-payment of fine. As already described, the appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence.

(3.) The applicant in this revision application has stated that there are many lacune in the evidence which have not been accounted for by the Trial Court. It has been stated that the seized items were not sealed properly; that no application of mind was observed while granting the sanction to prosecute the applicant; that the fire arm was not tested appropriately by firing the bullet from the same; that there was violation of Section 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and lastly that both the independent witnesses have turned hostile and in view of these lacune, the applicant should have been acquitted.