STATE OF ORISSA Vs. LUCAS BARLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panposb, acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arm Act, 1959 ('Act' for short).

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 5 -12 -1979 a country made pistol (M. O. I) was seized from the possession of the respondent by seizure list (Ext. 1). The respondent denied that he Was in possession of M. O. I. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that in the absence of the report of the Ballistic Expert that the country made pistol (M. O. I) was a fire -arm within the definition of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused -respondent.

(3.) IN this case, the evidence discloses that M. O. I was sent to the Director of Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Rasulgarh, on 2 -1 -1981 for the opinion of the Ballistic Expert as to whether it was a fire -arm. But the report of the Ballistic Expert was not proved in the Court. In the absence of the report, it did not appear that M.O. I. or the article which looked like a country made pistol was really a fire -arm within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. May be, it was a toy pistol, not a country made pistol or an article which looked like a country made pistol, but not a fire -arm. In the absence of any positive evidence that M. O. I came within the definition of fire -arm, the learned Judicial Magistrate, in my view, was justified in entertaining doubt to the effect that M. O. I was a fire -arm. It is well known that when two reasonable views are possible, the one which supports the accused should be accepted and an order of acquittal cannot be reversed. For this proposition, reference may be made to A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 274, Mehtab Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.