ANKAIYA MOG Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14 -05 -2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in case No. Criminal Appeal 08 of 2010 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 05 -03 -2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Belonia, South Tripura in case No. G.R. 161 of 2004 whereby he convicted the petitioners of having committed an offence punishable under section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - (rupees five hundred) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) month.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 29 -08 -2004 at about 9 -30 p.m. the Officer -in -Charge of the Santirbazar Police Station received some secret information that one Umesh Reang who was absconding and was wanted in connection with a criminal case was hiding in the house of one of the petitioners. When raid was conducted in the house of petitioner Dhanuram Reang, though Umesh Reang was not found but one country made gun was recovered from the house of accused petitioner Dhanuram Reang. Thereafter, the Officer -in -Charge of the Police Station received information that, in fact, Umesh Reang was hiding in the house of the second petitioner Ankaiya Mog. When raid was conducted in the house of Ankaiya Mog, again Umesh Reang was not found but another country made gun was recovered from that house. According to the prosecution, neither Dhanuram Reang nor Ankaiya Mog had any license to keep the said firearms and, therefore, prosecution was lodged against the petitioners under section 25(1 -B)(a) of the Arms Act.

(3.) SRI P.K. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urges that when the guns were seized, the same were neither packed nor sealed and there is no specific mark to identify that it is these guns which were recovered from the houses of the accused. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Salim Akhtar alias Mota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [ : AIR 2003 SC 4076], he submits that when the guns were not seized and there is nothing to connect the guns which have been produced in Court with the guns which were seized, the accused have to be acquitted.