MD. IRFAN @ MANGAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Md. Irfan @ Mangal, who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 25(1)A of the Arms Act and has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years as well as slapped with fine of Rs. One thousand in default thereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month additionally, under Section 25(1 -AA) of the Arms Act and has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years as well as also fined Rs. Five thousand in default thereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months additionally, under Section 26(II) of the Arms Act and has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. One Thousand in default thereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by the Ad hoc Additional

(2.) DINESH Kumar, informant (PW -5) recorded his fard - beyan (Exhibit -3) on 09.12.2011 at 11.30 a.m. at the house of Md. Irfan @ Mangal disclosing therein that on the same day at about 10.00a.m. he received confidential information at police station regarding operation of Mini Gun Factory, illegally at his house by Md. Irfan @ Mangal, whereupon, a raiding party was constituted and conducted raid at the house of Md. Irfan @ Mangal. So many persons have collected however none of them came forward to become the seizure list witness and on account thereof, in presence of Chaukidar Manoj Paswan as well as Chatri Sao, they after giving their own search, gone inside the house of Md. Irfan @ Mangal. As soon as they entered inside, they saw one person who was engaged in manufacturing the firearm who, seeing the police stood up and was accordingly, apprehended. On query, he disclosed his name as Md. Irfan @ Mangal. During course of search, one countrymade loaded pistol, one mis -fired .315 bore, half manufacturing barrel fixed with bush seven pieces, hexa -blade one piece, handdrill machine one piece, butt of firearm five, butt half constructed four pieces, hammer one piece, Sarsi one set two, Reti four, Chheni two, rivver three, base one, Neha one, blade ten, panchu two were recorded and seized as per seizure list, a copy of which was handed over to accused. On demand, he had not been able to show any document nor explain the recovery and for which seizure list was prepared.

(3.) THE defence case as is evident from mode of cross - examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. is of complete denial of occurrence as well as plea of false implication and on that very score, one DW has also been examined.