GULAB AHMAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned trial court presided over by Sri Bijendra Kumar Ray, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur had convicted all the three above named petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 25(1 -B)a/35 of the Arms Act and directed each of them to undergo R.I. for three years as well as also fined each of them Rs. 5000/ - in default thereof to undergo imprisonment of three months additionally, under Section 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for 2 years as well as also fined Rs. 5000/ - each in default thereof to undergo additional imprisonment for a term of three months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently was challenged by petitioner, Md. Gulab Ahmad under Cri. Appeal No. 4 of 2013 while Md. Shahnawaz @ Sunny @ Shahnawaz, Md. Sintu under Cr. Appeal No. 138 of 2012 which was heard and dismissed by a common judgment dated 01.06.2013 by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Bhagalpur, leading to instant revision petition.

(2.) P .W. -8, Niraj Kumar Singh, Officer -in -charge of Tilka Manjhi O.P. recorded his own fardbeyan on 21.08.2012 at about 06:00 P.M. west to Champa Nalapul divulging the fact that the Senior Superintendent of Police, after getting confidential information regarding suspected arrival of notorious criminal, Sunny directed him to conduct raid and intercept him on account of which raiding party was constituted and they arrived at Champa Nalapul, the entrance point, where they began to inspect the vehicles and during course thereof, JH 12A 8628 was intercepted having occupied by three persons who on query disclosed their respective identity and on personal search, it has been disclosed that from the possession of Sunny a loaded pistol, mobile, golden chain, cash appertaining to Rs. 3000/ - was seized. From possession of Gulab Ahmad a loaded pistol was seized. From the possession of Md. Sintu magazine along with cash appertaining to Rs. 1500/ -, mobile was seized. The aforesaid seizure was made in presence of two seizure list witness, Pramod Kumar as well as Md. Ansar Khan by way of seizure list.

(3.) WHILE assailing the successive judgments of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that they have fallen victim to arbitrariness as well as highhandedness of police. Learned counsel for the petitioners denied the factum of recovery of arms and ammunition and pleaded that it is out and out case of plantation. Then coming to merit of the case, it has been submitted that driver of the vehicle neither been made accused nor cited as a witness vehicle was also not seized. It has also been submitted that none of the seizure list witness have come forward to support the case of the prosecution.