CHANDAN SONKAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 8-10-1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, in Special Case No. 43 of 1995 whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.L for two years for the offence committed under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act and R.I. four years for the offence under: Section 26(1) of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant was put on trial for the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 25 (1B) and 26(1) of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10-5-1994 while on patrolling round, the officer-incharge, Bistupur P.S., who is the informant, got confidential information that the appellant, an absconding accused in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 67/94 has taken shelter in a house behind Yadav Petrol Pump in Road No. 14 at Mago, whereupon the informant arranged a raiding party and proceeded with other police officials including officer-incharge of Mago P.S. and raided the said house. The appellant was found sleeping on a cot in a room and on search a single barrel gun was recovered from beneath his bed. It was alleged that another single regular gun was engraved and wrapped in a cloth and 14 live cartridges were found concealed in a nearby sofa. The further case of the prosecution was that on search of the person of the appellant, 25 paper packets of brown sugar was recovered from the right pocket of the full pant of the appellant. The appellant was accordingly prosecuted under the aforesaid provisions of the Arms Act and also under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and the appellant was put on trial.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced from the side of the prosecution, came to a finding that the appellant was in conscious possession of the firearms and had concealed the same with the intention that it may not be known to the public servants. However, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution story that the appellant was having paper packets of brown sugar and, therefore, it was held that the appellant was not liable to be convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.