MD.SAMIULLAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, on being found guilty under Sections 25(1 -b) and 26 of the Arms Act, was sentenced to two years and three years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/ - under each charge with default stipulation by the trial Court and in appeal, the appellate Court, while confirming the sentence under Section 25(1 -b) reduced it to two years under Section 26 of the Arms Act. The present revision is against the said order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that on 23.4.1997 at about 8.20 p.m. the petitioner was found traveling in a bus bearing Registration No. BR -14P -411 and that when his bag was checked two country made pistol and six live cartridges were found. They were seized under seizure list attested by the witnesses. Later, after obtaining sanction and after completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed report against the petitioner.

(3.) I had given my anxious consideration to 'the said plea. On perusal of the judgment of the Courts below I find that PW 2, the Investigating Officer stated in his evidence that the petitioner is also involved in Simdega P.S. Case No. 48/93 registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. But, this statement made by the Court in the judgment is on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating Officer who did not produce any material to show that the petitioner is involved in the said case. It was a mere oral evidence of the Police Officer to the effect that the petitioner is an accused in another case. In this background, Section 54 of the Evidence Act assumes importance which contemplates that the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence had been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes irrelevant. Though Explanation 2 to Section 34 of the Evidence Act states that a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that the petitioner was in fact convicted in the said case. On the contrary, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not convicted of any of the offence much less for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC in Simdega P.S. case No. 48/93 which fact could not be disputed by the Public Prosecutor. The fact remains that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was involved in any other case.