DHARMENDRA KUMAR DHERAJ @ TUNTUU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) In this case, the impugned order dated 24.8.2006 refusing the prayer of the petitioner for their discharge has been assailed by Mr. Agrawal on the ground that there is absolutely no material in the case- diary to sustain any part of requirement of ingredients under Sections 25/26/35 of the Arms Act. Mr. Agrawal, in this context, has referred to first information report lodged by the police officer and the connected version of the police personnel recorded in the case-diary which go to show to the extent that when the raiding party had raided the premises of one Umesh Prasad Yadav and found a country made rifle and few cartridges kept below the chauki, the Police thereafter is said to have also arrested these two petitioners who are said to have been escaping away from the place of occurrence even though on their search no arms/ammunition or even cartridges was found from their conscious possession. Mr. Agarwal, thereafter, has also referred to the statements of Bhramdeo Yadav and Shashikant Yadav also recorded in paragraph 60 of the case-diary who too have only said that they had heard that one rifle and 12 cartridges were recovered from the house of Umesh Prasad Yadav which actually had belonged to these two petitioners. On these materials, Mr. Agrawal has submitted that there was actually nothing to connect the petitioners in connection with offence under Arms Act where either conscious possession or being aware of existence of arms recovered even from others possession alone is punishable.

(3.) Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, on the other hand, would submit that this court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not expected to scan the materials on record inasmuch as the scope of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is very limited.