DEOMUNI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Sections 397 and 401. of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 13 -9 -1996 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge. Dhanbad in Session trial No. 540 of 1995 arising out of Dhanbad PS No. 669/94 corresponding to GR No. 4305/1994 registered under Sections 25(a)/26/271 35 of the Arms Act, whereby and where under the petitioners prayer for discharge in the case was rejected.

(2.) THE prosecution case as indicated in the FIR is that on 12. -11 -1994, the informant had received information on telephone that a firing was being done in village Jharudih and after entering the same in Station diary being Station diary No. 316 dated 12 -11 -1994, the informant along with other police officials proceeded to village at about 9.15 A.M. where it was found that 6/7 persons armed with rifle and court by made pistol indulged in firing and after seeing the police party started fleeing away but on chase two persons were apprehended by .the police party on the roof of the house of Deomuni Sharma who disclosed their names as Ajay Kumar Sharma and Bimal Kumar. From the possession of Ajay Kumar Sharma One loaded rifle and 10 live cartridges of 3.15 bore were recovered. From the possession of Bimal Kumar. one loaded country -made pistol and 5 live cartridges of 3.15 bore were recovered. Accordingly the seizure -list was prepared in the presence of the independent witnesses and the case was registered against all the petitioners. The police investigated the case and submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioner. However the petitioners had filed a petition before the trial Court praying therein to discharge them and after hearing both sides the said petition was dismissed by order impugned dated 13 -9 -1996.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners at the very outset submitted before me that actually two cases were registered for the same occurrence dated 12 -11 -1994, of which one case was registered for the offence under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Court and Section 27 Arms Act, whereas the instant case was registered under the Arms Act. It is further submitted that there was no recovery from the possession of the petitioner Nos. 1. 2. and 5 and so the Arms Act, does not apply against them. It is also submitted that there was allegation about recovery of one Rifle from the possession of the petitioner No.4, but he has already furnished licence for the same and this petitioner is also not responsible for the allegation as alleged. It is further argued that Section 35 of the Arms Act does not apply to this case as the arms have not been procured or recovered from any premises. However, in course of argument, it is pointed out that the case registered under Section 302 and other allied offences was disposed of by the trial Court and accused -persons were convicted in the said case of which the appeal is also pending in the High Court.