KAMAL KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has assailed the validity of the order passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeals Nos. 13 and 14 of 1996 and also the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Berhampur in G. R. Case No. 387 of 1992 under Section 27 of the Arms Act whereby the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each, in default to undergo further R. I. for two months.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution story as unravelled during trial of the case is as follows : That P.W. 4, the I.I.C. of Baidyanathpur Police Station while investigating a case in connection with Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No. 113 of 1992 received an information that the petitioners had possessed fire arms for the purpose of committing an offence. On the basis of such information it is stated that he raided the house of the petitioner Bimal Kumar Sahu, who escaped during the search and seized the arms under Ext. 1 in presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are said to be independent witnesses and P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6, who are official witnesses. Since the petitioners had allegedly possessed arms more than the permissible limits, therefore, a case under Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against them and P.W. 4 proceeded with the investigation and ofter closer of the investigation he placed the charge-sheet in Court.

(3.) In order to sustain the charge against the petitioners, prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, and the learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence was, however, inclined to record an order of conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced the petitioners to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each, in default to undergo further R. I. for two months.